APHC010415012024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3396]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION Nos. 6678/2024 & 6267/2022 Criminal Petition No.6678 of 2024 Between:

1. NANDAVARAPU SANYASI RAO, S/O LATE ATCHIBABU, AGE 44 YEARS, R/O D.NO.1-1, NANDAVARAPUVANIPALEM VILLAGE, CHINTAGATIA PANCHAYAT, PENDURTHY MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM.

2. NANDAVARAPU PAIDAMMA, W/O SANYASI RAO, AGE 39 YEARS, R/O D.NO.1-1, NANDAVARAPUVANIPALEM VILLAGE, CHINTAGATIA PANCHAYAT, PENDURTHY MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM.

3. DASARI RAMANA, S/O LATE APPALANARASAYYA, AGED 49 YEARS, R/O D. NO. 9-91, IPPILIVANIPALEM VILLAGE, CHINTAGATIA PANCHAYAT, PENDURTHY MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM.

4. DASARI GANESH, S/O DASARI RAMANA, AGED 30 YEARS, R/O D.

NO. 9-91, IPPILIVANIPALEM VILLAGE, CHINTAGATIA PANCHAYAT, PENDURTHY MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM.

5. SANABOINA SAI SATISH, S/O KOTESWARARAO, AGED 27 YEARS, R/O D. NO. 1-44, IPPILIVANIPALEM VILLAGE, CHINTAGATIA PANCHAYAT, PENDURTHY MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM.

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)

AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESGH, (PENDURTHY POLICE STATION) REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH.

2. YELLABILLI METTAMMA, W/O APPARAO, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O NANDAVARAPUVANIPALEM, H/O CHINTAGATIA, PENDURTHY, VISAKHAPATNAM ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):

Criminal Petition No.6267 of 2022 Between:

1. DASARI CHINATNMALU, W/O DASARI RAMANA AGE 51 YEARS, R/O D.NO.9-91, IPPILIVANIPALEM VILLAGE, CHINTAGATLA PANCHAYAT, PENDURTHY MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM.

2. DASARI LALITHA, D/O DASARI RAMANA AGED 31 YEARS, R/O D.NO.9-91, IPPILIVANIPALEM VILLAGE, CHINTAGATLA PANCHAYAT, PENDURTHY MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM.

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)

AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, (PENDURTHY POLICE STATION) REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH.

2. YELLABILLI METTAMMA, W/O APPARAO AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O NANDAVARAPUVANIPALEM H/O CHINTAGATLA, PENDURTHY, VISAKHAPATNAM ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):

1. ARRABOLU SAI NAVEEN Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

1. N SRIHARI

2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following:

COMMON ORDER

The instant petitions under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973¹ have been filed by the Petitioners /Accused Nos.1 to 4 & 7 and Petitioners/Accused Nos.5 and 6 respectively seeking to quash the proceedings against them in S.C.SPl.No.59 of 2019 on the file of the Court of Special Judge for SC/ST (PoA) Act Cases-cum-XI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam for the offences under Sections 354 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860² and Section 3 (1) (r) (s) and 3 (2) (va) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, For short „SCST Act‟

For short „Cr.P.C‟

For short „I.P.C‟

2. Heard Sri Arrabolu Sai Naveen, learned counsel for the Petitioners, Sri N.Srihari, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.1/State.

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the allegations made against the Petitioners are vague and omnibus. Learned counsel would further submit that there is a civil suit pending between the brother of Respondent No.2 on one hand and Accused No.1 and others on the other hand and with an intent to settle the civil dispute, the present complaint has been filed with false and untenable allegations. Learned counsel would submit that there are no specific overt acts attributed against the Petitioners to attract the alleged offences against them. Learned counsel would finally submit that continuation of criminal proceedings against the Petitioners is an abuse of process of law. Hence, prayed for quashment of the same.

4. Per contra, learned senior counsel for Respondent No.2 would submit that there are prima facie allegations against Petitioners in the commission of the alleged offences. However, learned counsel fairly c