Back
CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
Tanuja Potluri Sritanuja N. – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Case Details: Criminal Petitions Nos. 4294 and 4295 of 2021 filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashment of FIR in Crime No. 08/RCO-ACB-GNT/2020 for offences under Sections 13(1)(d)(ii) r/w. 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 409, 420 r/w. 120-B IPC. Petitioners are A-10 (Crl.P.4294/2021), and A-8 & A-11 (Crl.P.4295/2021). [2000541030001][2000541030002]
FIR Basis: FIR registered on 15.09.2020 based on report by de facto complainant (stranger to transactions) alleging insider trading in lands in Amaravati capital area during June-December 2014, involving A-1 (former Additional Advocate General) sharing confidential capital location info with associates, including petitioners. [2000541030002][2000541030003][2000541030009][2000541030010]
Petitioners' Purchases: Petitioners bought small land extents in July/August 2015 via registered sale deeds for valid consideration, post official notification of capital on 30.12.2014; no prior purchases by them in 2014; no nexus alleged with A-1. [2000541030011][2000541030017][2000541030073]
Role of Additional Advocate General: A-1 (Additional A.G. from 30.06.2014 to 28.05.2016) had no constitutional/statutory duties under Article 165; role limited to court appearances, no involvement in policy/decision-making on capital location or AP CRDA Act, 2014; not privy to confidential info. [2000541030031][2000541030036][2000541030037][2000541030044][2000541030045]
No Insider Information: Capital location (between Krishna-Guntur Districts by Krishna River) public from June 2014 via CM announcements and newspapers; official via AP CRDA Act gazette on 30.12.2014; no secret info shared by A-1. [2000541030017][2000541030026][2000541030077][2000541030078][2000541030080]
Right to Property: Purchases by private individuals exercising constitutional/legal right to acquire property under registered deeds from willing sellers; cannot be criminalized. (!) [2000541030050][2000541030053]
Insider Trading Inapplicable: Concept relates to securities/stock market under specific laws; alien to IPC, cannot apply to private land sales. (!) [2000541030054][2000541030055][2000541030056]
No Cheating (S.420 IPC): No false representation, deception, dishonest/fraudulent inducement, or harm/loss to sellers; buyers no duty to disclose public info/latent advantages; explanation to S.415 (dishonest concealment) inapplicable. (!) [2000541030058][2000541030059][2000541030060][2000541030071][2000541030073]
No Criminal Conspiracy (S.120-B IPC): No agreement for illegal act/offence; no underlying offence, hence no conspiracy. [2000541030082][2000541030084][2000541030085]
No PC Act Offence Against Petitioners: Dependent on non-existent conspiracy/cheating; A-1's FIR already quashed. [2000541030087]
Procedural Issues: Delay (6 years); stranger complainant; vague allegations based on hearsay/rumours; prior similar cases quashed. [2000541030011][2000541030027][2000541030047][2000541030095]
Abuse of Process: FIR on conjecture/surmise; malicious prosecution to tarnish reputation; quashment warranted to prevent injustice. [2000541030047][2000541030090][2000541030093][2000541030096]
Outcome: Petitions allowed; FIR quashed against petitioners; liberty to claim damages; warning against false cases on land buys near capital. [2000541030102][2000541030103] (!) [2000541030101]
ORDER :
Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, J.
1. These two Criminal Petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are filed seeking quash of the F.I.R. registered against the petitioners in Crime No. 08/RCO-ACB-GNT/2020 of A.C.B. Police Station, Guntur, for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(d)(ii) r/w. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, the "P.C. Act") and under Sections 409, 420 r/w. 120-B of IPC.
2. The petitioner in Crl. P. No. 4294 of 2021 is A-10 and the petitioners in Crl. P. No. 4295 of 2021 are A-8 and A-11 in the above crime. Therefore, both the petitions were heard together and they are being disposed of by this common order.
3. A person by name Komatla Srinivasa Swamy Reddy, who is totally a stranger to the private sale transactions in question relating to private lands that took place between the petitioners and their vendors, lodged a report with the D.G., ACB, A.P., Vijayawada, on 07.09.2021.
4. The gist of the allegations set out in the said report germane for disposal of these Criminal Petitions may be stated as follows:
State of Karnataka VS Arun Kumar Agarwal - 1999 10 Supreme 215: No keywords or phrases (e.g., "followed," "distinguished," "overruled," "reversed") indicating judicial treatment in subsequent decisions are present in the provided summary. The text states a legal principle ("The acts of persons will not be subject of criminal investigation unless a crime is reported..."), but provides no information on how this case has been treated, making categorization ambiguous.
M. T. Khan VS Govt. of A. P. - 2004 1 Supreme 149: No keywords or phrases indicating judicial treatment are present. The summary asserts a rule ("State cannot appoint more than one Advocate General."), with no references to overruling, following, or other patterns.
Md. Ibrahim VS State of Bihar - 2009 6 Supreme 470: No keywords or phrases indicating judicial treatment are present. The summary outlines legal requirements for fraud and false documents ("By merely alleging... unless that fraudulent act is specified... 2. To fall under category of ‘false documents’..."), structured with a numbered point, but lacks any treatment indicators.
State of Karnataka VS M. Devendrappa - 2002 1 Supreme 192: No keywords or phrases indicating judicial treatment are present. The text describes a procedural stance ("Where factual matrix clearly shows commission of offences the Court should not exercise power u/s 482 Cr.P.C...."), but no subsequent treatment is referenced.
TUKARAM KANA JOSHI VS M. I. D. C. - 2012 7 Supreme 642: No keywords or phrases indicating judicial treatment are present. The summary is brief and vague ("Delay and laches applicability."), providing no basis for identifying treatment patterns.
Lalita Kumari VS Govt. of U. P. - 2013 8 Supreme 1: No keywords or phrases indicating judicial treatment are present. The summary states a rule ("Registration of FIR is mandatory if information given to police under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. discloses commission of a cognizable offence."), with no information on how the case has been treated by later decisions.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
