The court emphasized that a complaint must disclose an offence and not be frivolous, allowing quashing of proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. when abuse of process is evident.

ORDER :

All these criminal petitions are filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short “Cr.P.C.”) to quash the proceedings in C.C.L.G.No.2 of 2017 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, designated Court for the trial of cases under Land Grabbing Act, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 406, 420, 466, 467, 468, 471, 500 and 509 of I.P.C. and Section 5 (D) of Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 read with 34 of I.P.C. of Kothapet Police Station, Guntur Urban.

2) Petitioner in Crl.P.No.12726 of 2017 is accused No.1, petitioner in Crl.P.No.2508 of 2019 is accused No.2, petitioner in Crl.P.No.2030 of 2019 is accused No.4, and petitioner in Crl.P.No.5515 of 2019 is accused No.5.

3) As all these petitions are filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.L.G.No.2 of 2017 and the point involved in all these cases is one and the same, I find that it is expedient to decide these petitions by common order.

4) Defacto complainant Kanchi Ammaji lodged a private complaint before the IV Additional Munsif Magistrate’s Court, Guntur, alleging that accused Nos.1, 2, and 5 are the children of accused No.3, accused No.4 is the daughter-in-law in relation of accused No.3. One Pulakandam Janakirao and Sarojini Devi are the parents of defacto complainant Kanchi Ammaji, defacto complainant. The marriage of the defacto complainant was performed with one K.Veerababu and the couple is blessed with one male namely Kanchi Naga Krishna Murali, who is practicing as an advocate at Guntur, and two female issues namely Jhansi and Lakshmi. Accused No.3 is the aunt of the defacto complainant, who was married to S.China Basavaiah in second marriage as the said S.China Basavaiah was already married to one Late Venkamma and begot a son S.Lakshminarayana, who is the husband of accused No.4. Accused No.3 begot three sons and one daughter i.e. accused Nos.1, 2, 5 and another S.Dhanunjayarao. The marriage of the daughter of defacto complainant was performed with the said S.Dhanunjayarao.

5) It is further alleged that Somarouthu China Basavaiah has died on 07.11.1988. During his life time, he purchased Ac.1.89 cents of land in Sy. No.498 located behind Best Price on east to Guntur-Vijayawada Road vide Sale Deed No.5319/1970, dated 10.12.1970 of SRO, Guntur and after his demise on 7.11.1988, accused Nos.1 to 3 and 5 and the husband of accused No.4 became legal heirs to the estate of China Basavaiah. While so, on 11.2.2015, accused No.3 was died and the Ac.1.69 cents which is in Guntur Municipal Limits was in dispute with Urban Land Ceiling vide its File in ULC No.721/76-B. After the guidelines issued by the Govt. of India in Lr.No.3/1/97 UCU(2) dated 21-5-97 to provide equal share in the surplus land even to the major daughters, all the accused conspired together and hatched a nefarious design to achieve the exemption in the surplus land of Late Somarouthu China Basavaiah and in furtherance of their evil plan on 05.01.2004, accused Nos.1 to 5 without the knowledge of the defacto complainant, filed false representation with forged documents before the Special Officer, ULC. Guntur in the name of the defacto complainant along with accused No.2 for considering their case as per the guidelines issued by the Government of India in Lr.No.3/1/97 UCU(2) dated 21.05.1997 which was not considered by the authorities. In the said representation the name of the defacto complainant was cited as Kanchi Amamji w/o Chinnarao, daughter of China Basavaiah's first wife Venkamma and in support of their version, they enclosed the forged Transfer Certificate as if date of birth of the defacto complainant is 31.08.1956 and was studying in BKR ZP High School, Garapadu village, Vatticherukuru Mandal and similarly A2 also filed W.P.No.11953 of 2004 before the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. Hyderabad stating she was the only daughter of S.China Basavaiah and was major by the date of declaration and was entitled to one unit separately and in s