APHC010301362009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3396]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2257/2022 Between:

SHILAVANTHA VENKATA RAMANA RAO, S/O.S.NAGABHUSHANA RAO, D.No.19-a, MARUTHI HOMES, JOHARAPURAM ROAD, KURNOOL, KNL-CAMP-B, KURNOOL DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.7 AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AT AMARAVATI.

2. T.RAGHAVENDRA, S/O.T.SUBRAHMANYAM, AGD ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC:BUSINESS, R/O.BENGALURU, KARNATAKA STATE.

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

1. M.R.K.CHAKRAVARTHY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following:

ORDER

The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for short ‘Cr.P.C’ has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused No.7, seeking quashment of the proceedings in Crime No.35 of 2022, on the file of Kurnool III Town P.S.,

Kurnool District for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, for short ‘I.P.C.’

2. Heard Sri M.R.K.Chakravarthy, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner is falsely implicated in the present crime without there being any specific allegations against him. Learned counsel would further submit that, the Petitioner in discharge of his official duties, registered the Sale Deed dated 11.07.2018, therefore, no offence is attracted against the Petitioner. It is submitted that, at the time of registration of the said sale deed, the identity of the executants was verified and his finger prints and photographs were also matched with the Aadhar database. Therefore, the question of forgery, impersonation by the Petitioner does not arise. It is submitted that no specific overt acts are attributed against the Petitioner in the commission of the alleged offences. Learned counsel would further submit that, as per Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, the Petitioner cannot refuse to register the document. Learned counsel would pray for quashment of the proceedings against the Petitioner.

4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there are no grounds to quash the proceedings against Petitioner/A.7. She would submit that the allegations made against the Petitioner in the complaint would

squarely attract the offences alleged. It is submitted that, in view of the stay granted, the investigation has been stalled. The truth or otherwise of the allegations leveled against the Petitioner have to be revealed during investigation. Therefore, the criminal proceedings should not be quashed at this stage.

Point for Determination

5. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel representing both the parties, now the point that would emerge for determination is:

Whether the proceedings against the Petitioner/A-7 in Crime No.35 of 2022, on the file of Kurnool III Town P.S., Kurnool District, are liable to be quashed by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.?

Determination by the Court

6. The decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajanlal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604 is considered as the guiding torch in the exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At paras 102 and 103, the circumstances necessary to invoke this jurisdiction are spelt out as follows;

“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the