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.3642/2022 Between:

Uppara Ramalingappa and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)

AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S)

Others Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):

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

1. B R S KALYAN REDDY

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

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the Petitioners/A.1 and A.2 under Section

482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, APHC010241522022 1973 seeking to quash the Proceedings against them in CC No.692 of 2021 on the file of the Court of II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Adoni, registered for the offence punishable under Sections

420 and 468 read with 34 IPC.

2. Heard Sri M.R.K.Chakravarthy learned counsel for the Petitioners/A.1 and A.2, Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.1/State and Sri B.R.S.Kalyan Reddy, learned counsel for Respondent No.2.

Perused the material on record.

1 for short „the Code‟

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the Petitioners/A.1 and A.2 are erroneously implicated in this false case and they have nothing to do with the alleged offences. It is further submitted that respondent No.2 filed a Civil Suit in OS No.280 of 2018 and it is pending adjudication. Learned counsel submits that the said suit was filed with a view to force the petitioners for settlement of the matter in the suit, as an arm-twist, the present criminal case has been lodged against the Petitioners. Learned counsel would submit that the civil dispute was converted into a criminal case and that the main issues are civil in nature. Learned counsel would submit that the son of Petitioner No.1/A.1 also filed a civil suit in OS No.278 of 2019 for permanent injunction. The statements of the witnesses in the charge sheet would show that all are interested witnesses. Learned Magistrate without application of judicial mind, has taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 420 and 468 read with 34 IPC and issued process to the Petitioners. Learned counsel would further submit that the complaint was made with an inordinate delay, but no primary enquiry was conducted before registration of the case. The alleged forged document is not recovered from respondent No.2 and that respondent No.2 did not possess any land out of the ancestral property. Learned counsel submits that respondent No.2 has sold away his land to the Petitioners. Learned counsel would submit that Petitioners/A.1 and A.2 and respondent No.2 are brothers. The date of death of the father of the petitioners occurred in the year 2013. Respondent No.2 got registered the date of death of their father in the year 2020. Learned counsel would further submit that the date of death of the father of the Petitioners and respondent No.2 has not even mentioned in OS No.280 of 2018.

Learned counsel would argue that the prosecution did not chose to collect the real death certificate to believe the plea of forgery and to believe that the forgery has not taken place in the civil suit. In the absence of any allegations against the Petitioners, continuing the criminal proceedings against them is mere abuse of process of law.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 would submit that there is serious dispute between the parties with regard to the date of death of their father. It is the allegation that Petitioners have created an un-registered gift deed in the year 2015 though their father died in the year 2013. Apart from that, they have obtained pattadar passbooks. Learned counsel would submit that basing on the statements made by the petitioners before the Tahsildar, he cancelled the passbooks. Learned counsel would submit that simply because a civil suit is pending between the p