APHC010007332020 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: 8673/2022 Between:

1. Vedulapalli Satyananda Kumar, S/o.V.S.R.Mohana Rao, Hindu, Aged 67 years, Business, R/o.House No.10-454, Adivipalem, Dariyala Tippa, Yanam, Puducherry U.T.

2. Vedulapalli Surya Sri, W/o.Satyananda Kumar, Hindu, Aged 57 years, Housewife, R/o.House No.10-454, Adivipalem, Dariyala Tippa, Yanam, Puducherry U.T. … PETITIONERS/ACCUSED Nos.2 & 3 AND

1. State of A.P., Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Amaravati through its SHO, II Town L&O P.S., Kakinada, E.G.District.

2. Velagandula Anandam, S/o.Late Sri Sankarayya, R/o.D.No.1-1-1652/B, Gandhi Nagar, Hyderabad.

… RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

N.SIVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

2. J. AZAD CHANDRA SEKHAR 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 Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3, seeking quashment of proceedings against them in C.C.No.851 of 2022 on the file of the Court of II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada for the offences under Sections 417, 468, 471 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 and Section 12(1) (B) of Indian Passport Act, 1967, for short ‘IPC’

2. Heard Sri N.Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the Petitioners, Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.1/State and Sri J.Azad Chandra Sekhar, learned counsel for Respondent No.2.

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that Petitioners herein are arrayed as A.2 and A.3 in the above case. A.1 is their married daughter. Respondent No.2/de facto Complainant is the father of the divorced husband of A.1. Son of Respondent No.2 was shown as a witness (L.W.5-Velagandula Vivek). Learned counsel would further submit that, A.1 actually born in Kakinada and studied there up-to Intermediate and completed her B.Tech Course in Pondicherry Union Territory. Learned counsel would submit that the allegation against the Petitioners is that they created and fabricated a fake date of birth certificate to show that A.1 was born in Yanam (UT), Pondicherry on 11.09.1992 and that A.1 had obtained Indian Passport from Regional

Passport Office, Visakhapatnam on 11.06.2004 by using the said fake certificate to go to United States of America (USA). A.1 got USA citizenship on 08.10.2021.

(ii) Learned counsel would submit that the marriage of A.1 with the son of Respondent No.2/de facto Complainant was performed on 12.02.2011 at USA and during wedlock, they blessed with two sons. It is a second marriage to both of them. Due to some disputes, the couple were separated and obtained divorce in USA on 18.10.2022.

(iii) Learned counsel would submit that in fact, A.1 was born in Peoples’ Hospital, Gandhinagar, Kakinada on 11.09.1982. Petitioner No.1/A.2 did rice mill business at Yanam, Pondicherry and he has obtained a date of birth certificate of A.1 from Yanam Municipality to the effect that as if A.1 was born at Yanam on 11.09.1982. But, Accused never used the date of birth certificate which was obtained from Yanam Municipality. Learned counsel would further submit that, after disputes arose between the couple, i.e., A.1 and L.W.5, at the instance of L.W.5, Respondent No.2 lodged this complaint alleging that the date of birth certificate issued by Yanam Municipality is a created document. Learned counsel would submit that A.1 has filed a writ petition before High Court of Madras on point of jurisdiction vide WP No.22795 of 2022 questioning the action of the Respondent authorities therein, in not cancelling her date of birth certificate issued by Yanam Municipality, though she gave representation to Yanam Municipality on 11.12.2020 for cancellation