APHC010030512023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 540/2023 Between: VARAGANTI SANKARA NARAYANA, S/O. LATE MADHAVA RAO, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, MULAAPETA, NELLORE. SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH SHO, VEDAYAPALEM POLICE STATION, NELLORE, SPSR NELLOREDISTRCT. REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATHI 2. DACHEPALLI SATYANARAYAN RAO, S/O.LATE CHALAPTHI RAO, VEDAYAPALEM, NELLORE TOWN, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. LINGALA HAZARATHAIAH Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. VENKATA REDDY CHITTEM 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731, has been filed by the Petitioner / Accused No.1, seeking to quash the proceedings against him in Crime No.630 of 2022 on the file of Vedayapalem Police Station, SPSR Nellore District for the offences under 1 For short ‘Cr.P.C’ 2 Sections 447, 427, 419, 420, 471, 474 and 506 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code2. 2. Heard Sri Lingala Hazarathaiah, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Sri Venkata Reddy Chittem, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State/Respondent No.1. 3. Learned counsel for Petitioner / Accused No.1 submits that the impugned FIR is a clear abuse of process of law, as the dispute is purely civil in nature and has been maliciously given a criminal colour after the defacto complainant repeatedly failed before the civil courts. Learned counsel would further submit that the Petitioner derived valid title over the subject property pursuant to an Agreement of Sale dated 25.04.2015 and a decree for specific performance in O.S. No.190 of 2015 dated 14.03.2016, followed by execution of a registered sale deed on 15.12.2017. The petitioner’s ownership is thus supported by a judicial decree and a registered document. It is submitted that Respondent No.2 and his mother, despite being fully aware of the Petitioner’s title, initiated civil proceedings in O.S. No.22 of 2018 seeking injunction. The interim injunction application filed in O.S.No.22 of 2018 was dismissed against which C.M.A was also preferred and the same was also dismissed. As such, Respondent No.2 withdrew O.S.No.22 of 2018. Thereafter, Respondent No.2 also filed O.S.No.74 of 2022, wherein, ad-interim injunction petition was filed and the same was also dismissed. No further challenge was made to the adverse orders. Having failed to obtain any relief from the civil courts, 2 For short ‘IPC’ 3 Respondent No.2 lodged the present complaint by suppressing material facts and pendency of civil litigation, only to harass the Petitioner and pressurize him to settle the civil disputes through criminal proceedings. Learned counsel would submit that, a bare reading of the FIR does not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences alleged against the Petitioner. The allegations, even if accepted at face value, relate to possession and title over immovable property and do not constitute any criminal offence. Learned counsel would finally submit that, the Petitioner is a senior practicing advocate at Nellore Bar, and the FIR has been filed with a mala fide intention to defame him and threaten him with illegal arrest. Therefore, continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law. Hence, prayed to quash the impugned proceedings. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 would submit that the petition is not maintainable, as the FIR discloses cognizable offences and the investigation is at a nascent stage. At this stage, the truth or otherwise of the allegations cannot be examined in proceedings. Learned counsel would further submit that, mere pendency of civil litigation or existence of a civil remedy does not bar criminal prosecution when the allegations disclose ingredients of criminal offences. It is further submitted that the decree for specific performance and the registered sale deed relied upon by the Petitioner do not automatically extinguish the rights of Respondent No.2, and the validity, genuineness, and manner of acquisition of the said documents are disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated in quash 4 proceedings. It is further submitted that suppression of facts or alleged failure in civil proceedings is a matter of defence and cannot be a ground to quash the FIR at the threshold. The learned counsel, therefore, prays for dismissal of the petition. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor supported the version of learned counsel for Respondent No.2. 6. A bare perusal of Section 482 makes it clear that the Code envisages that inherent powers of the High Court are not limited or affected so as to make orders as may be necessary; (i) to give effect to any order under the Code or, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or, otherwise (iii) to secure ends of justice. A court while sitting in Section 482 jurisdiction is not functioning as a court of appeal or a court of revision. It must exercise its powers to do real and substantial justice, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. These powers must be invoked for compelling reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence. 7. It is alleged in the complaint given by Respondent No.2 that his father purchased property in Survey No.7 (Sub-Division Sy.No. 7/5 B) an extent of 100 ankanams situated at Vedayapalem, Nellore city from Dudala Rajamma, W/o. Sanjeevaiah, on 22-11-1970 through registered document No.3023/1971 of Sub Registrar Office, Nellore. It is further alleged that, after the death of his father, through a register partition deed, the said property fell to their share and they built a compound wall around the property, constructed room 5 measured two ankanams and paying house tax and electricity charges. It is further alleged that the Petitioner / Accused No.1 created a fake registered document in favour of Accused No.2 and got registered the property plot Nos.8, 9 an extent of 66 ankanams under a register document No.9117/2017 of Sub-Registrar office, Nellore dated 15-12-2017 and subsequently got registered some extent of the property in favour of Accused Nos.2 to 5. It is further alleged that, all the Accused trespassed in to the property by damaging gate key, removed fencing stones and threatened Respondent No.2. 8. This Court has carefully examined the allegations in the FIR in the light of the submissions made. The complaint discloses that Respondent No.2 claims title and possession over subject land, whereas the Petitioner claims title over Plot Nos.8 and 9 under a registered sale deed executed pursuant to a decree of a competent civil court. Thus, the core issue between the parties is with regard to the identity, location, and extent of the subject property. 9. The allegations of criminal trespass, fabrication of documents, and intimidation are based on the assertion that the property dealt with by the Petitioner forms part of the property claimed by Respondent No.2. Such allegations cannot be examined without adjudicating the disputed identity of the property, which necessarily involves examination of title deeds, boundaries, measurements, and survey records. These issues are essentially civil in nature and cannot be decided in criminal proceedings. 10. It is also evident from the record that Respondent No.2 had earlier approached the civil courts by filing O.S. No.22 of 2018 and O.S. No.74 of 6 2022 seeking injunctions in respect of the same subject matter, and that the interim injunctions sought therein were refused. The said orders were not carried further. The initiation of criminal proceedings thereafter clearly indicates an attempt to give a criminal colour to a civil dispute. The allegations of creation of fake documents against the Petitioner are bald and devoid of material particulars. Execution of a registered sale deed pursuant to a decree for specific performance cannot, by itself, constitute a criminal offence, especially when the very identity of the property is under serious dispute. 11. While it is settled law that the existence of a civil dispute does not by itself bar criminal proceedings, it is equally well settled that criminal law cannot be permitted to be used as a weapon to settle civil scores or to pressurize a party in a property dispute. Allowing the investigation to continue in the present case would amount to abuse of the process of law. The allegations in the FIR, even if are taken at face value, they do not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences alleged, this Court is of the considered view that it is a fit case to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to secure the ends of justice. 12. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in Crime No.630 of 2022 on the file of Vedayapalem Police Station, SPSR Nellore District against Petitioner / Accused No.1 are hereby quashed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:04.02.2026 Dinesh 7 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.No.540 of 2023 Dt.04.02.2026 Dinesh