2020 Supreme(AP) 574
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
C. Praveen Kumar, J.
Anne Sudheer Babu - Appellant
Versus
State Of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 1719 of 2020
Decided On : 21-10-2020
Ginjupalli Subba Rao, Advocate, Dammalapati Srinivas, Advocate, H. Prahlad Reddy, Advocate
The Court held that the allegations in the FIR, even if taken at their face value, disclosed commission of cognizable offences. The Court also held that the investigation was at its nascent stage and that it was not a fit case to stifle the investigation.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL PETITION - QUASHING OF INVESTIGATION - INVESTIGATION IN CRIME NO.14 OF 2020 OF CRIME INVESTIGATION DEPARTMENT (CID) POLICE STATION, AMARAVATHI, MANGALAGIRI, REGISTERED AGAINST ONE, K.BRAHMANANDA REDDY (A1) AND OTHERS, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 420, 506 READ WITH SECTION 120-B I.P.C., SECTION 3(1)(G),(2)(VA) OF S.CS. & S.TS. (POA) AMENDMENT ACT, 2018 AND SECTION 7 OF A.P. ASSIGNED LANDS (PROHIBITION OF TRANSFERS) ACT, 1977 - PETITIONER, RETIRED TAHSILDAR, SEEKING TO QUASH THE INVESTIGATION - HELD, INVESTIGATION CANNOT BE STALLED AT THE INCEPTION - PETITION DISMISSED.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a retired Tahsildar, filed a criminal petition seeking to quash the investigation in Crime No.14 of 2020 of Crime Investigation Department (CID) Police Station, Amaravathi, Mangalagiri, registered against one, K.Brahmananda Reddy (A1) and others, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 506 read with Section 120-B I.P.C., Section 3(1)(g),(2)(Va) of S.Cs. & S.Ts. (PoA) Amendment Act, 2018 and Section 7 of A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. The petitioner contended that the allegations in the First Information Report (FIR) were vague and did not disclose commission of any cognizable offence. The State, on the other hand, contended that the FIR disclosed commission of cognizable offences and that the investigation was at an initial stage.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the allegations in the FIR, even if taken at their face value, disclosed commission of cognizable offences. The Court noted that the informant was an eyewitness to the transactions entered into with respect to lands falling in Thullur Mandal, where the petitioner worked as Tahsildar. The Court also noted that the petitioner was instrumental in getting the lands included in land pooling scheme of the Government, though they were assigned lands. The Court further held that the investigation was at its nascent stage and that it was not a fit case to stifle the investigation. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition.
Issues: 1. Whether the allegations in the FIR disclosed commission of cognizable offences? 2. Whether the investigation was at an initial stage?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the allegations in the FIR, even if taken at their face value, disclosed commission of cognizable offences. The Court noted that the informant was an eyewitness to the transactions entered into with respect to lands falling in Thullur Mandal, where the petitioner worked as Tahsildar. The Court also noted that the petitioner was instrumental in getting the lands included in land pooling scheme of the Government, though they were assigned lands. 2. The Court held that the investigation was at its nascent stage and that it was not a fit case to stifle the investigation.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petition.
JUDGMENT
C.Praveen Kumar, J. - The present Criminal Petition came to be filed by A4 (Retired Tahsildar) under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, seeking to quash the investigation in crime No.14 of 2020 of Crime Investigation Department (CID) Police Station, Amaravathi, Mangalagiri, registered against one, K.Brahmananda Reddy (A1) and Others, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 506 read with Section 120-B I.P.C., Section 3(1)(g),(2)(Va) of S.Cs. & S.Ts. (PoA) Amendment Act, 2018 and Section 7 of A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977.
2. The facts discernible from the report lodged by one, Yellamati Prasad Kumar, are as under :
It is stated that since 2014, one, Kommareddy Brahmananda Reddy (A1) used to come to the village of the informant i.e., Nidamanuru Village for land dealings. A1, who has a real estate office near Ambedkar statute in Mangalagiri Town, was introduced to the informant by one Pedapudi Andriyya and his sons Naga Raju and Rajesh. The informant, being a caste elder of Harijanawada, used to discuss about the land settlements. A1 is alleged to have settled a land dispute in respect of land admeasuring Ac.6.50 cents, existing between P.Andriyya, P.Naga Raju and P.Rajesh, purchased Ac.0.06 cents of the land and got it registered in the name of his wife in Sub-Registrar's office at Duggirala. The informant thought that he would be paid on par with Nagaraju and Rajesh for settlement of the dispute, but, no amount was paid and the issue of payment was being dragged on one pretext or the other. Thereafter, the informant and others were appointed to work in A1's office. Since then the informant and others used to attend the office of A1 at Mangalagiri regularly. At that time, they noticed frequent visits of Harijans, having assigned lands, to the office of A1. The informant was owning land to an extent of Ac.0.45 cents in Pedapalem Village. The informant was forced and threatened to execute a G.P.A.-cum-Agreement of Sale in favour of the son of A1 and after abusing the informant, the same was registered in the office of Sub-Registrar at Mangalagiri. It is further alleged in the Report that in so far as Ac.6.50 cents of land in Pedapalem village, the informant was made to believe that he will be paid Rs.20,00,000/-, as he acted as an elder and settled the dispute, but no amount was paid. However, loan was advanced, to which the informant executed promissory notes. Though the informant claims to have repaid the entire amount, the promissory notes were not returned. The land papers of the informant were also not returned. When asked for the same, A1 is said to have abused the informant.
It is further alleged in the report that farmers belonging to scheduled caste community and who are residents of Mandadam, Velagapudi, Rayapudi, Lingayapalem, Venkatapalem, Krishnayapalem, Nelapadu, Inavolu, Betapudi, Sakhamuru, Thulluru, Errabalem, Navuluru, Dondapadu, Ananthavaram, Nekkallu and other villages used to come to the Office of A1. That about 160 acres of land belonging to Ambedkar Society, at Rayapudi, 100 acres of land belonging to Lenin Society situated in the same village and lands situated at Bapujinagar, which belong to Madigas and which are assigned lands, were purchased by A1. After paying some paltry amount, entered into an agreement with the Harijans. Later, the accused got these properties registered after paying bribe to Sub-Registrar Gopal, who was working in the office of Sub-Registrar at Mangalagiri. According to him, huge extents of DKT lands were also purchased by A1. He pleads that nearly 1000 acres of assigned land was purchased in Capital Villages. In these transactions huge sum of money running into thousand crores changed hands. The transactions were made through bank accounts of A1 and his son which are in Bank of Baroda, Mangalagiri and Vijayawada. In this regard, Gummadi Suresh of M&M Showroom, Vijayawada, Shafibul Rahman of Krishna District, Kolli Siva Ram of Srin