APHC010299082024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] FRIDAY,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4927/2024 Between: 1. GUTHULA GOVIBDA RAO @ GOVINDU, S/O TATABBAI, AGED 51 YEARS, D.NO. 2-25, V.SAVARAM VILLAGE, RAYAVARAM MANDAL KONASEEMA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH S.H.O., BICCAVOLU POLICE STATION, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT, AMARAVATI. 2. K POSIBABU, S/O BAPPANNA DORA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC TAHSILDAR, BICCAVOLU MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records relating to the proceedings in C.C.No.l750 of 2023 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Anaparthi, and quash the proceedings thereon and to grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: K MOHAN RAMI REDDY 2 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.4927 of 2024 Dated 13.03.2026 Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, “the Cr.P.C.”) / Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, “the BNSS”) by the petitioner herein, seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 1570 of 2023, arising out of Crime No. 106 of 2023 of Biccavole Police Station, on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Anaparthi, for the alleged offences under Sections 434, 341, and 506 of ‘the I.P.C’. 2. Notice on respondent No. 2 is served. A memo has been filed. There is no representation for respondent No. 2. Sri K. Lenin Babu, learned counsel, is appointed as Legal Aid Counsel for respondent No. 2. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, and the learned Legal Aid Counsel for respondent No. 2. 4. Mr. K. Mohan Rami Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused, vehemently argued that the petitioners are in no way concerned with the removal of the survey boundary stone in Survey No. 393 of Pandam Village. The de facto complainant/respondent No. 2, without any basis, lodged a complaint against the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner further 3 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.4927 of 2024 Dated 13.03.2026 drew the attention of this Court to the findings and observations of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Anaparthi, in C.C. No. 78 of 2016, vide judgment dated 13.06.2022, wherein, at para No. 16, while referring to the deposition of PW2, the then Tahsildar in that case deposed that the accused did not have land adjacent to the punta. The then Tahsildar (petitioner No. 2) further deposed in that case about his instructions to the Village Revenue Officer for removal of the said cement stone and subsequently instructed him to submit a report to the police in case of repeated offence. PW2 admitted that the lands of Pandalapaka Village were surveyed and the land in Survey No. 393 was declared as “Revenue Punta,” but notice was not issued to the accused, though he had made an application for survey of his land in Survey No. 392/11. The learned Magistrate, in the above-mentioned case, found the petitioner, who was arraigned as an accused, not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 283 of ‘the I.P.C.’, and accordingly acquitted him under Section 255(1) of ‘the Cr.P.C’. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the proceedings on the file of the learned Magistrate amount to an abuse of the process of law and urges this Court to set aside the said proceedings by allowing the Criminal Petition. 6. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned Legal Aid Counsel for respondent No. 2 submit that the case in 4 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.4927 of 2024 Dated 13.03.2026 Crime No. 73 of 2015, which culminated in C.C. No. 78 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Anaparthi, is different from the present crime. 7. In the instant case, the Tahsildar has alleged that the boundary stone installed in Survey No. 393 of Pandam Village was intentionally removed by the petitioner. 8. It is further alleged that the petitioner picked up unnecessary altercations with the persons in the said survey number, abused them in filthy language, and threatened them with dire consequences, stating that if anyone touched the identity pipe in the Government punta, he would take away their lives. There are specific allegations levelled against the petitioner by the Tahsildar, which are the subject matter of trial. This Court cannot conduct a mini trial to arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings amount to an abuse of process of law, and hence it is urged that the petition be dismissed. 9. It is further submitted that LWs 3 and 4 are the alleged eyewitnesses to the removal of the survey stone in Survey No. 393. Point for consideration: 5 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.4927 of 2024 Dated 13.03.2026 Whether the proceedings in C.C.No.1570 of 2023 on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Anaparthi under section 482 of ‘the Cr.P.C’ can be quashed? 10. On perusal of the record, it appears that in the year 2015, one Sreedevi lodged a complaint against the petitioner, which was registered as Crime No. 73 of 2015 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 341 and 283 of ‘the I.P.C’. In the said complaint, it was stated that the petitioner, who was the accused in that case, had installed a cement pole across the road in Government land, thereby causing obstruction to the right of passage. When the matter was reported to the Tahsildar, Biccavolu, and as per his instructions dated 12.06.2015, the complainant, with the assistance of the revenue staff, removed the cement pole. However, the petitioner again installed the cement pole. As the petitioner was repeatedly interfering with the survey affairs and reinstalling the poles, a case was registered. The learned Magistrate, after conducting the trial, acquitted the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner did not have land adjacent to the public punta, and that it was not established by the prosecution that the cement pole allegedly erected by the accused was within the land in Survey No. 393 of the punta road. 6 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.4927 of 2024 Dated 13.03.2026 11. As the prosecution witnesses did not adduce any evidence in that regard, the learned Magistrate observed that the prosecution failed to establish that the accused had obstructed the public punta and caused inconvenience to its users. However, in the present case, the Tahsildar has lodged a complaint alleging that the petitioner removed the survey stone in Survey No. 393. 12. For this allegation, the Investigating Officer has relied on two eyewitnesses, namely LWs 3 and 4, who have stated that the petitioner removed the survey stone from Survey No. 393, which is a Government punta. Whether the petitioner has, in fact, removed the survey stone in the Government punta is a matter for trial, and the prosecution has to adduce evidence in support of the same. The petitioner, being the accused, is entitled to establish his innocence either by examining defence witnesses or by effectively cross-examining the prosecution witnesses. This Court cannot conduct a mini trial for the purpose of quashing the proceedings. 13. Apart from this, there are allegations leveled against the petitioner that he has committed offences punishable under Sections 506 and 341 of the I.P.C. These involve disputed questions of fact, and therefore, this Court cannot undertake an exercise akin to a trial to determine whether the complaint amounts to an abuse of the process of law. Even 7 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.4927 of 2024 Dated 13.03.2026 assuming that the petitioner contends that the survey stone was within his land, he is not entitled to remove the same without the express permission of the revenue authorities. There are no merits in the petition. The petitioner has to adduce evidence before the trial Court to establish his innocence. 14. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Any observations made herein shall not influence the learned trial Court while deciding the matter on merits after appreciation of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the defence, if any, in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 13.03.2026 PBS 8 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.4927 of 2024 Dated 13.03.2026 227 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.4927 of 2024 Date: 13.03.2026 PBS