V.Lakshman Goud vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 21 April, 2025

Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati

V.Lakshman Goud vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 21 April, 2025

APHC010079662023
                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                    AT AMARAVATI               [3457]
                             (Special Original Jurisdiction)

                   MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL
                      TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

                                  PRESENT

               THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

                       CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1290/2023

Between:

V.lakshman Goud and Others                   ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)

                                    AND

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

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):

  1. SARALA NEELAGIRI

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

  1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)

The Court made the following:
                                          2


ORDER:

–

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the

petitioners are arraigned as accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C.No.934 of 2022 on the

file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandikotkur, for the alleged offences

under Sections 354, 323, 506 r/w 34 of IPC. It is submitted that the 3rd petitioner

has filed Crime No.86 of 2022 on the file of Muchumarri Police Station, Nandyal

District, for the alleged offences under Sections 448, 506, 509 r/w 34 of IPC

against the 2nd respondent. As a counterblast a private complaint was filed by

the 3rd petitioner against the 2nd respondent and her husband. The 3rd petitioner

is the mother-in-law of the 2nd petitioner.

2. It is submitted that the 2nd respondent and her husband were consistently

pressurizing the petitioners for a share in the property, and it is also alleged that

the 2nd respondent and her husband were demanding partition of the house, and

that the failure to effect partition of the house had led to physical attacks on the

3rd petitioner and her family members. Aggrieved by the said actions of the 2 nd

respondent and her husband, the 3rd petitioner filed a complaint before the

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandikotkur, and got the same referred to the

police for investigation. It is submitted that the 1st petitioner has filed O.S.No.319

of 2021 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Nandikotkur, against the husband of the

2nd respondent seeking injunction and restraining him from interfering with the

possession of the house of the 1st petitioner. The learned Judge had granted

injunction vide order dated 09.12.2021.

3

3. It is submitted that the 2nd respondent and her husband are residing

separately in the same village. Aggrieved by the complaint filed by the 3rd

petitioner, the 2nd respondent has filed a complaint as a counterblast, alleging

offences under Sections 354, 323, and 506 of IPC. It is submitted that the 1 st

petitioner is a paralytic patient and requires assistance to move around.

However, a false complaint alleging an offence under Section 354 of IPC has

been filed against the 1st petitioner. It is also submitted that the allegation of an

offence under Section 354 of IPC is not made out against petitioner Nos.2 and 3.

4. It is further submitted that the family disputes relating to the property have

triggered the 2nd respondent to file a false complaint. It is also submitted that the

1st petitioner has filed a civil suit seeking injunction against the husband of the

2nd respondent. The learned Judge has granted an injunction restraining the 2 nd

respondent’s husband and his henchmen from interfering with the possession of

the 1st petitioner’s house. Unmindful of all this, the 2nd respondent, in connivance

with her husband, has resorted to filing a false complaint and has converted the

civil disputes pending between the petitioners and the 2nd respondent into a

criminal case.

5. It is submitted that this Court, in the matter of Yannana Subba Rao and 6

others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh in Crl.P.No.11623 of 20181, dealt with an

identical issue wherein civil disputes were pending between the parties therein,

and the said disputes were converted into a criminal case. Such an attempt was

found fault with by this Court.

1
2024 Supreme (Online) (AP) 3158
4

6. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, on written instructions, submits

that the police have conducted an investigation in Crime No.87 of 2022 and filed

a charge sheet. It is also submitted that the police have recorded the statements

of three independent witnesses who speak to the facts of the incident. It is

further submitted that the allegations under Section 354 of IPC were not found

to be made out against the 3rd petitioner.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.

8. Perused the record.

9. Except for the statement of the 2nd respondent and her husband regarding

the alleged incident which occurred on 09.09.2022 at 09:00 AM, when the 1st

petitioner allegedly hugged the 2nd respondent, and the moment the 2nd

respondent raised a hue and cry, her husband came to her rescue and

separated the 2nd respondent from the 1st petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioners

are said to have physically assaulted the 2nd respondent. The listed witnesses

Nos. 3, 4, and 5 would speak for the statement regarding the alleged physical

assault on the 2nd respondent. The allegation under Section 354 of IPC against

petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 is not found in the entire record. Insofar as the allegation

under Section 354 of IPC against the 1st petitioner is concerned, the same is an

issue which has to be dealt with before the trial court as it is a question of fact,

and the witnesses who speak on the said incident ought to be adduce evidence

in the trial court.

5

10. Considering these issues, this Court is of the considered view that the

case against petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 deserves to be quashed insofar as the

application of Section 354 of IPC is concerned. It is left open for the trial court to

consider the case against the 1st petitioner for the offence charged, and insofar

as petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, the trial court is to consider the

charges against the petitioners under Section 323 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC only.

12. With these observations, this Criminal Petition is disposed off.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

____________________
JUSTICE HARINATH.N
Date: 21.04.2025
PNS