IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF OCTOBER jfjw TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

CRIMINAL PETITION Nos: 860 and 1171 OF 2022

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 860 OF 2022

Between:

N

• Gurram Satish Kumar, S/o G V Chalapathi Aged about 50 years, R/o D No. 8/126 Near water tank, Pamidi village and mandal Anantapur District. 1.
• 2. Gurram Krishna Mohan, S/o G V Chalapathi Aged about 47 years R/o D no 8/126 Near water tank, Pamidi village and mandal Anantapur District

...Petitioner/Accused No. ¹ & 2

AND

State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, at Amaravati. 1.

...Respondents/Respondents

• 2. Smt. K Obulamma, W/o Late Pedda Gampaiah Aged 72 years
• Agriculturist Residing at Pamidi village and Mandal Ananthapuramu District.

...Respondent/De-facto Complainant

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,

Uhe High Court may be pleased to quash the all further proceedings against the petitioners herein in Crime No. 10 of 2022, of ¹ Pamidi Police Station, /An'anthapuramu District, setting aside the orders dated 07-12-2022 passed the Hon'ble Judicial ^I Class Magistrate, Gooty in C.F.No.1737.

I.A. NO: 2 OF 2022

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including appearance of the petitioners in Crime No.10 of 2022, of Pamidi Police Station, Ananthapuramu District, pending disposal of the quash petitioner.

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Eluru Sesha Mahesh Babu, Advocate for the Petitioners and the Ms. D Prasanna Lakshmi, Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri Narasimhulu Parise, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1171 OF 2022

Between:

• 1. K.Ramana Reddy, S/o K.Narayana Reddy aged about 63 years. Retired Tahsildar, R/o 6/821, Azad Nagar, Near Georgepet Post Office, Kalyandurg Road, Ananthapuram (A-3)
• 2. R.Balaji Raon, S/o R.Satyam, aged about 56 years, working as Tahsildar (FAC) Gummagatta R/o 8/1172, Near RTC Bus Stand, Gooty, Ananthapuram District(A-4)
• 3. R.Naga Divakar Rao, S/o Late R.P.Nagaiah aged about 42 years, now working as Deputy Tahsildar (Elections) Uravakonda, R/o 13-1-964 Revenue Colony, Ananthapuram(A-5)
• 4. G.Brahmananda, S/o Late Pulana, aged about 44 years, now working as Mandal Surveyor, Pamidi R/ o 4-164, Atmakur, Ananthapuram(A-6 )
• 5. A.Anjaneyulu, S/o Late A.Pullanna, aged about 37 years, now working as Village Revenue Officer, Peddavaduguru Mandal R/o 3/150, Old Kalluru, Garladinne, Ananthapuram District(A-7)

...Petitioners

AND

• 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented through Public Prosecutor at High Court, Amaravathi
• 2. Kallamadi Obulamma, W/o Late Kallamadi Gamapaiah, aged 70 years R/o Diguva Mala Street, Pamidi Town, Ananthapuram District

...Respondents

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in FIR No.10 of 2022 dated 21.1.2022 on the file of PS Pamidi, Anathapuram District in so far as the petitioners herein are concerned.

I.A. NO: ¹ OF 2022

\

/

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in FIR No 10 of 2022 dated 21.1.2022 on the file of PS Pamidi Ananthapuram District ins o far as the petitioners herein are concerned.

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri N Ranga Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioners and the Ms. D Prasanna Lakshmi, Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri Narasimhulu Parise, Advocate for the Respondent No.2

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

APHC010039192022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3396]

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

CRIMINAL PETITION Nos: 860 AND 1171 OF 2022

Criminal Petition No.860/2022

Between:

• 1. GURRAM SATISH KUMAR, S/O G V CHALAPATHI AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/O D NO 8/126 NEAR WATER TANK PAMIDI VILLAGE AND MANDAL ANANTAPUR DISTRICT.
• 2. GURRAM KRISHNA MOHAN, S/O G V CHALAPATHI AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/O D NO 8/126 NEAR WATER TANK PAMIDI VILLAGE AND MANDAL ANANTAPUR DISTRICT

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)

AND

• 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AT AMARAVATI,
• 2.S H O OF POLICE, PAMIDI PS ANANTAPUR DISTRICT
• 3.SMT K OBULAMMA, W/O LATE PEDDA GAMPAIAH AGED 72 YEARS AGRICULTURIST RESIDING AT PAMIDI VILLAGE AND MANDAL ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):

Criminal Petition No.1171 /2022

Between:

• 1. K.RAMANA REDDY, S/O K.NARAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, RETIRED TAHSILDAR R/O 6/821, AZAD NAGAR, NEAR GEORGEPET POST OFFICE, KALYANDURG ROAD. ANANTHAPURAM
• 2. R.BALAJI RAIN, S/O R.SATYAM, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, WORKING AS TAHSILDAR (FAC) GUMMAGATTA R/O 8/1172, NEAR RTC BUS STAND, GOOTY, ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT
• 3.R.NAGA DIVAKAR RAO, S/O LATE R.P.NAGAIAH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, NOW WORKING AS DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (ELECTIONS) URAVAKONDA, $R/O$ 13-1-964 REVENUE COLONY. ANANTHAPURAM
• 4.G.BRAHMANANDA, , 5/0 LA FT PU LLANROA AGED ABOUT 44

YEARS, NOW WORKING AS MANDAL SURVEYOR, PAMIDI R/ O 4-164. ATMAKUR, ANANTHAPURAM

5.A.ANJANEYULU, S/O LATE A.PULLANNA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, REVENUE OFFICER. WORKING AS VILLAGE NOW MANDAL $R/O$ $3/150,$ OLD KALLURU, PEDDAVADUGURU GARLADINNE, ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)

AND

• 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AT HIGH COURT, AMARAVATHI
• 2. KALLAMADI OBULAMMA, W/O LATE KALLAMADI GAMAPAIAH. AGED 70 YEARS R/O DIGUVA MALA STREET, PAMIDI TOWN, ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):

$\mathbf{e}^{-\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\right)^2}$

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):

1 N RANGA REDDY

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

• 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
• 2.P NARASIMHULU

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 & 2 and Accused Nos.3 to 7 respectively, seeking quashment of the proceedings in FIR No.10 of 2022 (Pamidi Police Station, Ananthapuram District), registered for the offence under Sections 166, 167, 218 and 420 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860².

Since both the criminal petitions are arising out of the same FIR, both the $2.$ petitions are decided by way of this common order.

The allegations mentioned in the private complaint filed by Respondent 3. No.2, succinctly, are as follows:

¹ for short 'Cr.P.C'

$2$ for short 'I.P.C.'

a) One Kallumadi Kesappa, who is the father-in-law of Respondent No.2, being landless poor, was assigned the land of an extent of Ac.3.12 cents in Sy.No.319-C and had been possession and enjoyment of the said property with absolute right, title and interest. After the death of said Kesappa, the said land was assigned to the husband of Respondent No.2 and after his death. Respondent No.2 became the absolute owner of the said property and has been in possession and enjoyment of the same and the Revenue Authorities have also issued Pattadar Passbook and Title Deed Book in her favour.

That being so, as one Yerragudi Kareem Sab tried to encroach the subject land. Respondent No.2 filed O.S.No.42 of 2010 on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Gooty, seeking permanent injunction against said Kareem Sab and his men and pending disposal of the said suit. Petitioners/Accused Nos.l and ² had purchased the subject property from Kareem Sab and being politically influenced persons, they influenced Petitioners/Accused Nos.3 to 7, who are the Revenue Officials and all the Accused colluded with each other, got mutated the name of the Petitioner/Accused No.l in all the revenue records and Pattadar Passbook and Title Deed and other records were also issued in favour of Petitioner/Accused No.l and also uploaded the same in web-land entries. Subsequently, having disbelieved the said documents, the learned Junior Civil Judge, Gooty decreed O.S.No.42 of 2010 in favour of Respondent No.2 herein. b)

During pendency of the civil suit, as Petitioners/Accused Nos.3 to 7, who are public servants, has tampered, prepared, translated the electronic record knowing and believing to be incorrect, with an intention to cause loss to c)

of Petitioners/Accused Nos.l and 2 records, Respondent No.2 filed a private learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gooty the Police for investigation and report. Respondent No.2 and mutated the names and Y.Kareem Sab in the revenue complaint before the Court of the which was forwarded to

Police registered the said complaint as a of Pamidi Police Station, Ananthapuram case in FIR No. 10 of District for the alleged The d) 2022 on the file offence.

Pefitioners/Accused Nos.l to ⁷ filed these Aggrieved thereby, the seeking quashment of the proceedings against them. e) petitions

Arguments Advanced at the Bar

counsel for Petitioners and Sri 4. Heard Sri N.Ranga Reddy, learned learned counsel for Respondent No.2 and Ms.D.Prasanna P.Narasimhulu Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State/Respondent No.l is in attendance.

Learned counsel for the Petitioner/Accused Nos.l to ⁷ would submit that Uluru Obulapathi and he gifted the 5. originally the subject property belongs to one and said Kesappa sold an extent of Ac.2.53 cents said land to Kallamadi Kesappa Imamuddin and C.A.Rahiman, vide a registered Sale turn Imamuddin sold an extent of Ac. 1.00 cents to to Petitioner/Accused No.l in Sy.No.319/lCl to one Deed dated 10.09.1984 and in Sab and said Kareem Sab sold the same Sale Deed dated 13.04.2010 and ever one Kareem under a Registered purchase, Petitioner/Accused No.l has been in possession and enjoyment of the said land. Learned counsel would further ^l since the date of submit that Respondent No.2 brought

fake proceedings that the said land was allotted to her husband and she along with her kith and kin filed civil suits in respect of the said land. Learned counsel would further submit that the Petitioner/Accused No.l also filed criminal cases against Respondent No.2 and her men and the same are pending adjudication and as a counterblast to the said cases, the present false case has been foisted against the Petitioners. It is further submitted that against the decree and judgment passed in O.S.No.42/2010, Petitioner/Accused No.l and other Defendants therein preferred A.S.No.31 of 2017 and the same was allowed setting aside the decree passed in O.S.No.42/2010 and the matter was remanded to the trial Court for fresh consideration. Learned counsel would further submit that Petitioners/Accused Nos.3 to 7 are all Government Employees and they have done their official duty as per the records available and they are not parties to O.S.No.42 of 2010. Learned counsel would submit that no offence has been committed by Petitioners/Accused Nos.l to 7 as alleged in the complaint. Hence, prayed to quash the proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.l to 7. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Babu Venkatesh and Others v. State of Karnataka and Another^ and ^a High Court of Telangana in Ch.Ramaiah & Others v. The State of A.P and Another'^.

6. Learned counsel for Respondent No.2 would submit that there are specific overt acts against the Petitioners for which a detailed investigation is required. It is submitted that there are several civil and criminal cases in respect of the

'X

/ 5

^{^} 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 181

^' Crl.P.No.5669 of 2013, dated 26.11.2021

subject land and having political influence, Petitioners/Accused Nos.l and ² ⁱ collusion with Petitioners/Accused Nos.3 to Respondent No.2, which is worth more than Rs.l2 in 7, with a view to grab the property of crores, tampered and prepared the electronic records. Though Respondent No.2 initially tried to lodge a complaint with the Police against the Petitioners, they refused to take the complaint, as such, she lodged ^a private complaint. Learned counsel would further submit that the subject land is the assigned land and since from her ancestors, they have been in possession and enjoyment of the said land. Learned counsel would submit that prima facie case is made out against the cannot be quashed. Hence, Petitioners, as such, the proceedings against them prayed for dismissal of the petition.

Point for Determination

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

Whether the proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused ⁷ in FIR No.lO of 2022 on the file of Pamidi Police Station, Ananthapuram District, are liable to be quashed by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.? Nos.l to

Determination by the Court

A bare perusal of Section 482 makes it clear that the Code 8. envisages that inherent powers of the High Court are not limited or affected so as to make orders as may be necessary; (i) t^7 give effect to any order under the Code or, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or, otherwise (iii) to secure ends of justice. A court while sitting in Section 482 jurisdiction is not functioning as ^a

trial court, court of appeal or a court of revision. It must exercise its powers to do real and substantial justice, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. These powers must be invoked for compelling reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence.

The decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana $9.$ and others v. Bhajanlal and others⁵ 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 following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

• (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
• (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

⁵ AIR 1992 SC 604

• (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
• (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
• (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
• (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
• (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.

103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice."

(emphasis supplied)

$10.$ In the case on hand, it is alleged by Respondent No.2 that Petitioners/

Accused Nos.1 and 2 in collusion with Petitioners/Accused Nos.3 to 7, who are

Revenue Officials, got tampered, prepared and translated the electronic record in their favour and tried to grab the property of Respondent No.2. It is the contention of Respondent No.2 that, originally her father-in-law was assigned with the subject property and after the demise of her father-in-law and her husband, she became the absolute owner of the said property and has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. While so. Respondent No.2 filed O.S.No.42 of 2010 on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Gooty against one Yerragudi Kareem Sab, who is the vendor of Petitioner/Accused No.l seeking permanent injunction and she also filed I.A.No.l56 of 2010 in O.S.No.42 of 2010 seeking temporary injunction sand the said petition was dismissed on 07.05.2011. In the meanwhile. Petitioner/Accused No.l filed W.P.No.8448 of 2012 before the Composite High Court of A.P., and the High Court had issued orders dated 09.04.2012 for registration of the subject land in favour the Petitioner/Accused No.l and in view of the said orders, Pattadar Passbook and Title Deed were issued to Petitioner/Accused No.l for the subject land as he had purchased the same from his vendor Kareem Sab. Subsequently, as O.S.No.42 of 2010 was decreed in her favour, and as W.P.No.32309 of 2017 filed by Respondent No.2 herein was also withdrawn by her, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ananthapuramu vide Proceedings in R.C.No.D2/913/2018, ordered to delete the name of Petitioner/Accused No.l from web land and other revenue records in respect of the subject land. Thereafter, an appeal in A.S.No.31 of 2017 has been preferred against the judgment in O.S.No.42 of 2010 on the file of the Court of VI Additional District Judge, Gooty and the same was allowed on

9

X

04.06.2018 setting aside the decree and judgment passed in the said suit and by remanding the matter to the trial Court for fresh consideration and the same is pending adjudication. Immediately on the next day of the judgment in A.S.No.31 of 2017 i.e., on 05.06.2018 the office of the Thasildar, Pamidi had issued ^a report stating that, in view of the judgment in A.S.No.31 of 2017, it was not possible to grant Pattadar Passbook to Respondent No.2 herein.

Perusal of the material on record would further disclose that the vendor of Petitioner/Accused No.l namely Y.Kareem Sab was holding Pattadar Passbook and Title Deed book in his name with regard to the subject property and Petitioner/Accused No.l having purchased the same from said Kareem Sab under a Registered Sale Deed in Doc.No.692 of 2012, dated 13.04.2010 has become the owner of the said property. 11.

As seen from the above. Respondent No.2 is claiming title and possession over the subject property by filing a civil suit and the same is not yet decided. The entire dispute is of civil nature and the same is given ^a colour of criminal offence. The right, title and possession over the subject property is still pending adjudication before the Civil Court. Further, Petitioners/Accused Nos.3 to 6, who are the Revenue Officials have done their official duty as per the orders passed by the Civil Courts as well as the High Court. The entire episode would disclose that the title of the Petitioner/Accused No.l over the subject property will be subject to the result of the suit. 12.

13. At this juncture it is relevant to refer to Sections 415 and 420 IPC which read as follows:

"415. Cheating—Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat".

420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.—Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for ^a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."

421. Perusal of the above Sections would reveal that, to hold a person guilty of the offence of cheating, it has to be shown that his intention was dishonest at the time of making the promise. In the present case, the Petitioner/Accused No.l has been claiming the property in view of the Registered Sale Deed dated 13.04.2010. The entire allegations in the complaint do not disclose the dishonest intention of the Petitioners at the inception to attract the offence under Section 420 read with 34 IPC. In the absence of any ingredients under Section 420 IPC, rest of the offences under Sections 166, 167 and 218 IPC also do not arise against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.l to 7.

In Mohammad Ibrahim and others v. State of Bihar and another^/ 15.

the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:

"This Court has time and again drawn attention to the growing tendency of complainants attempting to give the cloak of a criminal offence to matters which are essentially and purely civil in nature, obviously either to apply pressure on the accused, or out of enmity towards the accused, or to subject the accused to harassment. Criminal courts should ensure that proceedings before it are not used for settling scores or to pressurise parties to settle civil disputes "

(emphasis supplied)

The Hon'ble Apex Court in Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India 16.

Limited^, cautioned the growing tendency to convert purely civil disputes into

criminal cases and observed as follows:

13. Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged."

(emphasis supplied)

In Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal another^, after 17.

considering a series of decisions, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as follows:

The Court must ensure that criminal prosecution is not used as an instrument of harassment or for seeking private vendetta or with an ulterior motive to pressurize the accused."

(emphasis supplied)

In B.Suresh Yadav v. Sharifa Bee and Another^, it was observed by 18.

the Hon'ble Apex Court as follows:

"...Power of High Court of quashing of the criminal case can be exercised when a civil suit is also pending between the parties in respect of the same subject matter and continuation of criminal

^® 2009 (8) see 751

^' (2006) ⁶ see 736

^® (2007) 12 see ¹

^{^} (2007) 13 see 107

proceedings in such like cases amounts to abuse of process of law."

(emphasis supplied)

In the present case, a bare perusal of the allegations leveled against the Petitioners/Accused No.l to 7, would clearly go to show that no prima facie case is made out against them for the offences alleged. Furthermore, the allegations mentioned in the complaint would clearly show that the pure civil dispute was given the colour of ^a criminal offence based on the same allegations. 19.

In view of the above discussion and the judgments referred to supra, this Court is of the view that there are no ingredients to attract the offence under Sections 166, 167, 218 and 420 read with 34 IPC against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.l to 7. Therefore, it is a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing the proceedings against the Petitioners. 20.

In the result. Criminal Petition Nos.860 and 1171 of 2022 are allowed quashing the proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.l to 7 in FIR No. 10 of 2022 on the file of Pamidi Police Station, Ananthapuram District for the offence under Sections 166, 167, 218 and 420 read with 34 IPC. 21.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

Sd/- K. SRINIVASA RAJU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

• 1. The Station House Officer, Pamidi Police Station, Anantapur District
• 2. One CC to Sri. Eluru Sesha Mahesh Babu Advocate [OPUC]
• 3. One CC to Sri. N Ranga Reddy Advocate [OPUC]
• 4. One CC to Sri. Narasimhuiu Parise Advocate [OPUC]
• Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi [OUT] 5.
• 6. Three CD Copies

stu

COMMON ORDER CRLP.Nos.860 and 1171 of 2022

ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITIONS