IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that vague allegations without specific evidence do not warrant criminal proceedings, especially when statutory remedies are available.

ORDER :

The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973[in short ‘Cr.P.C.’] has been filed, by the Petitioner/Accused No.2, seeking quashment of the proceedings against her in Crime No.21 of 2020 of Konakanamitla Police Station, Prakasam District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 464 & 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860[in short ‘I.P.C.’]

2. Facts leading to filing of the present case:

(i) The complainant mother namely Doddepati Parvathamma is having agriculture land situated at Nagamapalli Village in Survey No.52/1 to an extent of Ac.4.73 cents of Konakanamitla Mandal. The complainant family being land less poor, the mother of the complainant had applied for grant of assignment land in favour of her before the revenue authorities. Accordingly, in 1997 as per resolution passed by the Assignment Committee, mother of complainant has got pattadar passbook. Since then, the complainant and his mother have been in possession and enjoyment of the same without any interruption by raising dry crops as absolute owners of the property.

(ii) The mother of the complainant used to receive crop loan from Syndicate Bank since ten years, recently also mother of the complainant took crop loan for the above said agriculture land. Entire family members depend upon the income of the said agriculture land. But Accused Nos.1 to 4 were making conspiracy to allot the property of complainant family to the third parties illegally by way of receiving huge amount towards corruption and changed name of Doddetipalli Parvathamma in all revenue records i.e. 1B, Adangals in online records and illegally issued pattadar passbooks in favour of third party by way of cheating, with an intention to get money from the third party.

(iii) There is no relationship in between the complainant family and the third party. LWs.2 to 4 are the witnesses as the complainant mother have been in possession and enjoyment of the above said land without any interruption till today. A1 to A4 fraudulently changed the above said agriculture land records which belongs to complainant’s mother by attesting their signatures on the fake revenue records. Basing on the complaint given by the complainant, case was registered in Crime No.21 of 2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 409, 420, 464, 120B of I.P.C. and Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

3. Feeling aggrieved by registration of the crime against the Petitioner/Accused No.2, she preferred the present petition on the following grounds:

a) Petitioner neither changed the entries in the revenue records nor amended the revenue entries with reference to the subject land.

b) As per the web-land entries relating to land holding details of Sy.No.52/1, the name of Kokkera Venkataswamy with Khata No.214 was made on 21.05.2018 and even prior to the same i.e. 17.05.2018, the then Tahsildar Sri M.Jwala Narasimham has revoked the digital signature in the online revenue records. Therefore, the amendment entries in the revenue records were done on 21.05.2018 by the competent authority.

c) If any person is aggrieved by the amendment made in the records by the Tahsildar, remedy is to file an appeal before the RDO within a period of 60 days, under Section 5(5) of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 and Rules made thereunder. If further aggrieved by the orders of the appellate authority, there is a statutory remedy of revision under Section 9 of the Act. The complainant without availing the said remedies, cannot maintain the present complaint on vague and misconceived allegations.

d) Under Section 8(1) of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, no suit shall lie against the Government or any officer in respect of a claim to have an entry made or in relation to any entry made in any record or to have any such entry omitted or amended.

e) When the amendment was said to have occurred in the year 2018 and at that relevant period, the petitioner has not even worked in Prakasam Dist