APHC010147432021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3333]

AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2565/2021 Between:

Gadde Mallikarjuna Rao, and ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)

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

Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):

1. V HIMABINDU Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

1. PRABHU NATH VASIREDDY 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following:

ORDER:

This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short “Cr.P.C.”) by the petitioner/accused No.1 to 4 to quash the FIR in Cr.No.45 of 2021 on the file of Amaravathi Police Station, Guntur District for the offences punishable under Sections 420 IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution is as follows:

The de-facto complainant/respondent No.2 is aged about

75 years and suffered with paralysis. The respondent No.2 on request made by the 1^st petitioner has permitted him to live on the upstairs of his building. While things being so, the de-facto complainant came to know that the house tax has come in the name of the 1^st petitioner through Village Volunteer and upon enquiry the de-facto complainant/respondent No.2 came to know that the petitioner No.1 has created a sale deed on 09.01.2019 in his favour with the help of petitioner Nos.2 to 4 by creating forged document and registered the same without his knowledge. He submitted that he did not sell his house to anybody, and that one occasion, the petitioner No.1 requested him to sign as a witness and got the sale deed registered in his name. Thereafter, he approached the Amaravathi Police station and lodged a complaint against petitioners herein for the offence punishable under section 420 of IPC.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that the de-facto complainant has been falsely implicated in this case at the instigation of the children of the de-facto complainant, who disagreed their father's decision to sell the house. The property was registered at the Sub-Registrar’s office in the year 2019. Thereafter, the first petitioner got his name mutated in the village revenue records and has been paying house tax since then. Petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 served as witnesses, while petitioner No. 4 prepared the relevant documents. After purchasing the house, the first petitioner leased part of it to Sri Ganapa Praveen Kumar Reddy, Kasu Goverdhan Reddy, and Guvvala Venkata Hanimi Reddy on 21.09.2020, and they are currently occupying that part of the premises. It is reported that the children of the de-facto complainant came to the first petitioner’s home, attacked him, and attempted to evict him, causing him injuries. Consequently, the first petitioner filed a complaint, which is a subject matter of Crime No. 29 of 2021 at the Amaravathi Police Station, for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 341, and 506 and the same is still pending.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there are civil disputes between the petitioner No.1 and the de facto complainant since long time. The petitioner has also filed a suit vide O.S.No.155 of 2021 before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli seeking permanent injunction in respect of the house in question and the court has granted interim injunction on 12.03.2021 and the said suit is pending. Therefore, with a view to exert undue pressure on the petitioner No.1, the de facto complainant lodged a criminal complaint. In such circumstances, taking cognizance against the petitioners/ accused No.1 to 4 herein for the aforesaid offence is not maintainable. Therefore, the complaint filed by the de-facto complaint is liable to be quashed.

5. Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsel representing both parties and on perusal of the material available on record, the point that arises for consideration is as follows:

“Whether the proce