IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8295 OF 2022
Between:
1, Yegineni Rama Devi, (in FIR wrongly mentioned as W/o.Nageswara
Rao,
Yogineni Rama Devi) Aged about 49 years, R/o.Neredupalli
Village,
Vinjamuru Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.
2. Yegineni Nageswara Rao
S/o.Tirupataiah, Aged about 54 years,
j»
R/o.Ncredupalli Village, Vinjamuru Mandal, SPSR Nellore
District.
...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 & 2
AND
1. The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court
Buildings, Amaravati.
2. Mulpuri Praveen Kumar,, S/o.Vijaya Kumar, Aged about
not know to
Petitioners, R/o.33/4, 8th cross. Reliable Residency,
Haralur Road,
Bengaluru, Karnataka State
...RESPONDENT N0.2
DEFACTO COMPLAINANT
J
Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to quash the proceedings
v/:/://'.ig'airist the Petitioners in Crime No.86/2022 of Vinjamur Police Station, SPSR
n $
#
* Nellore District.
c
I
I.A. NO: 2 OF 2022
Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances
stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court
may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in Crime No. 86/2022
of Vinjamur Police Station, SPSR Nellore District.
This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of
Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri BOLLA
VENKATA RAMA RAO, Advocate for the Petitioners and the Public
Prosecutor (AP) on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri G Yaswanth,
Advocate for the Respondent No.2
The Court made the following ORDER :
1
VJPJ,
f
CRLP.No.8295/2022
APHC010564242022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
0E0
AT AMARAVATI [3396]
0r^
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8295/2022
Between:
Yegineni Rama Devi and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S)
Others
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):
1. BOLLA VENKATA RAMA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
2.YASWANTH GADE
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (in short, “Cr.P.C.”) has been filed by the Petitioners/
Accused Nos.1 and 2 seeking quashment of the proceedings against them in
Crime No.86/2022 of Vinjamur Police Station, SPSR Nellore District for the
2
VJPJ,
CRLP.No.8295/2022
offences punishable under Sections 120b, 420, 465,
467, 471 r/w 34 of Indian
Penal Code, 1860\
2. Heard Sri B.V.Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners,
Sri
Yashwanth Gade, learned counsel for the respondent
No.2 and
Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
on behalf of the
State.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that
the case has been
lodged against the petitioners for the offences punishable
under Sections
120b, 420, 465, 467, 471 r/w 34 of IPC. Learned counsel
for the petitioners
would submit that it is alleged against the petitioners
that one Mr.M.Devadas
who is the brother of Mrs. M. Prasanna Kumari who are
the joint owners of the
subject property in collusion with the present petitioners
created the false
agreement of sale dated 14.12.1996 by forging the signatures
of Mrs.M.
Prasanna Kumari
if she along with her brother
as
Mr.M. Devadas sold an extent of Ac.6.22 cents in Sy.No.535/2
and Ac.3.68
cents in Sy.No.535/1 of Vinjamuru Village. Learned
counsel would further
submit that that by virtue of the alleged agreement
of sale, the petitioners
have obtained Pattadar Passbook. The complainant herein
is the nephew of
Late Mrs.M.Prasanna Kumari, who got G.P.A from the
legal heirs of Late
Mrs.M.Prasanna Kumari and lodged this criminal complaint
against the
petitioners. Learned counsel would further submit that
the owner of the
^ For short "I.P.C
..
3
VJPJ,
CRLP.No.8295/2022
property i.e., Mrs. M.Prasanna Kumari died on 16.03.2006. The legal heirs of
of title and also for
Mrs. M.Prasanna Kumari filed civil suit for declaration
vide O.S.No.205
cancellation of agreement of alleged sale dated 14.12.1996
District Judge Court,
of 2015 which is pending on the file of V Additional
the civil suit is very much
Nellore. Learned counsel would further submit that
who is the
pending before the competent civil court. Now the complainant
up with the criminal case
GPA holder of the plaintiffs in the civil suit comes
submit the pleadings in
against the petitioners. Learned counsel would further
the brother of Mrs.
the civil suit would show that Mr.M.Deva Das who is
Mrs.M.Prasanna Kumari
M.Prasanna Kumari got forged the signature of Late
finally submits that by
and executed the agreement of sale. Learned counsel
O.S.No.205 of 2015, the
suppressing the pendency of the civil suit i.e.
and
present criminal case has been lodged against the petitioners
of process of law.
continuation of criminal proceedings is mere abuse
Contrasting the same, learned counsel for the respondent No.2
4.
vehemently opposes the petition stating that the respondent No.2 herein is a
After the death of Late
GPA holder of the plaintiffs in O.S.No.205 of 2015.
the property. The
Mrs.M.Prasanna Kumari, her children became owners of
of sale dated 14.12.1996 has been created by forging the
agreement
anti date. Learned
signatures of Late Mrs.M.Prasanna Kumari by giving
that the petitioners
counsel for the respondent No.2 would further submit
agreement of sale. The
obtained pattadar passbooks with the aid of forged
VJPJ,
CRLP.No.8295/2022
respondent No.2 challenged the same before the RDO.
The RDO clearly
observed that the Tahasildar has not followed the procedure
before issuing
Pattadar Passbook and there is difference in the signatures
of late
Mrs.M.Prasanna Kumari on the agreement of sale as well
as ID card. Learned
counsel would further submit that the petitioners preferred
revision against the
order of the RDO which was dismissed. Petitioners preferred
writ petition
which pending before this court. Learned counsel for
the respondent No.2
would submit that simply because there is a delay of
seven days in preferring
this criminal complaint from the date of filing of
civil suit and the delay of
fifteen years in lodging the criminal complaint after
the death of late Mrs.
M.Prasanna Kumari and the delay of twenty five years
from the date of
alleged agreement of sale is not a ground for quashment
of the case. Learned
counsel would further submit when the fraud played
Mr.M.Deva Das came to
the notice of the legal heirs of late Mrs.M.Prasanna
Kumari in the year 2015
and they filed the civil suit for declaration of title
as well as cancellation of
agreement of sale. Learned counsel for the respondent
No.2 would further
submit that the complainant has entered the picture
by virtue of the GPA
which was executed by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.205
of 2015.
Determination bv the Court:
5. 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
makeorders as may be necessary; (i) to give effect
to any order under the
5
VJPJ,
t
CRLP.No.8295/2022
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 trial court, 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.
6. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer the Judgment in Mohammad
Ibrahim and others v. State of Bihar and another^the
Hon’ble Apex Court
has held as under;
“This Court has time and again drawn attention to the
growing tendency of compiainants attempting to give the
cioak of a criminai offence to matters which are essentiaity
and pureiy civii in nature, obviousiy either to appiy
pressure
on the accused, or out of enmity towards the accused, or to
subject the accused to harassment. Criminai courts shouid
ensure that proceedings before it are not used for settiing
scores or to pressurize partiesto settie civii disputes... ”
(emphasis supplied)
7. In another decision reported Mitesh Kumar J.Sha v. State of
Karnataka and others^ the Hon’ble Apex Court has held
as under:
^ 2009(8]SCC751
^ 2021SCCOnlineSC976
6
VJPJ,
CRLP.No.8295/2022
“41. Having considered the reievant arguments of the
parties and
decisions of this court we are of the considered view
that existence of
dishonest or frauduient intention has not been made
out against the
Appeiiants. Though the instant dispute certainty invotves
determination
of issues which are of civit nature, pursuant to which
Respondent No. 2
has even instituted muitipie civit suits, one can by
no means stretch the
dispute to an extent, so as to impart it a criminat
cotour. >As has been
rightty emphasized upon by this court, by way of an
observation
rendered in the case of M/s indian OH Corporation Vs.
'M/s. NEPC india
Ltd & Ors. 7, as under
“14. White no one with a tegitimate cause or grievance
shoutd be
prevented from seeking remedies avaiiabte in criminat
law, a
complainant who initiates or persists with a prosecution,
being fuliy
aware that the criminal proceedings are unwarranted
and his remedy
lies only in civil law, should himself be made accountable,
at the end of
such misconceived criminal proceedings, in accordance
with law. ”
42. It was also observed
“13. While on this issue, it is necessary to take notice
of a growing
tendency in business circles to convert purely civil
disputes into
criminal cases. This is obviously on account of a prevalent
impression
that civil law remedies are time consuming and do not
adequately
protect the interests of lenders/creditors.. ..There
is also an impression
that if a person could somehow be entangled in a criminal
prosecution,
there is a likelihood of imminent settlement. Any effort
to settle civil
disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal
offence, by
applying pressure though criminal prosecution should
be deprecated
and discouraged. ”
(emphasis supplied)
8. This Court in Telikapalli Padmavathi v.State^ while
dealing with a
quash petition concerning Section 420, observed as
follows-
'*2023 see ONLINE AP 3658
7
VJPJ,
CRLP.No.8295/2022
“16. In Gulam Mustafa (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court having
expounded the law on the point, held thus;
“36. What is evincible from the extant case-law is that this Court has
been consistent in interfering in such matters where purely civil
disputes, more often than not, relating to land and/or money are given
the colour of criminality, only for the purposes of exerting extra-judicial
pressure on the party concerned, which, we reiterate, is nothing but
abuse of the process of the court. ...”
9. A perusal of record shows, the suit was filed by the legal heirs of the
late Mrs.M.Prasanna Kumari with the same set of facts in the present
complaint. The suit is pending before the competent civil court. Nothing has
been added in the present case except the very same contents in the said
suit.
10. In the light of the judgments referred supra and the facts and
circumstances of the present case, unless it is shown that the said agreement
of sale which is a subject matter in the civil suit is created by forging the
signature of late Mrs.M.Prasanna Kumari, continuing criminal proceedings
against the petitioners is mere abuse of process of law. When the matter is
pending before the competent civil court, it is at premature stage to come to
the conclusion that the subject agreement of sale is a forged one.
11. In that view, the petition is allowed. The case against the petitioners in
Crime No.86 of 2022 is hereby quashed. However, it is left open to the
8
VJPJ,
CRLP.No.8295/2022
complainant to recourse his remedy at appropriate stage
after conclusion of
the trial.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending,
if any, shall stand
closed.
SDI- G.HELA NAIDU
ASSISTANT RfeGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
To
1. The Station House Officer, Vinjamur Police Station,
SPSR Nellore District.
2. One CC to Sri. Bolla Venkata Rama Rao
Advocate [OPUC]
3. One CC to Sri. G Yaswanth, Advocate [OPUC]
4. Two CCs to the PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
High Court of Andhra Pradesh at
Amaravathi, [OUT
5. Three CD Copies
TAC
HIGH COURT
DATED:29/11/2024
ORDER
CRLP.No.8295 of 2022
g 2 7 JAN 2'':3 m
. Current ;>eciion , ^
ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION