Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Maddireddy Kondreddy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 4 July, 2025
APHC010267782022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3457]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4117/2022
Between:
1. MADDIREDDY KONDREDDY, S/O MALREDDY, AGED 50
YEARS, OCC. CULTIVATION, R/O DOOR NO. 5-155,
VISWANADHAN STREET, THAMBALLAPALLI TOWN,
THAMBALLAPALLI, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH
CHANDRAGIRI POLICE STATION, REP BY PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P. AT AMARAVATHI.
2. M BAYANNA, S/O M. VENKATAIAH, AGED 50 YEARS, R/O
DOOR NO. 18-2-63, ASHOK NAGAR, KORLAKUNTA,
CHNADRAGIRI MANDAL, TIRUPATHI (OLD CHITTOOR)
DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):
Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of
BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of
Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Courtto quash the proceedings
in FIR No. 224/2022, dated 18.05.2022 of Chandragiri Police Station,
Chandragiri, Tirupathi (old Chittoor) District in relation to the Petitioner
only and pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2022
Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS 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. 224/2022, dated 18.05.2022 of
//2//
CRLPNo.4117 of 2022
Chandragiri Police Station, Chandragiri, Tirupathi (old Chittoor) District
in relation to the Petitioner only and pass
IA NO: 2 OF 2022
Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying
that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of
Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased pleased to vacate the
interim orders dt.17-06-2022 passed in I.A.No.1/2022 in
CrI.P.No.4117/2022 and dismiss the Criminal Petition No.4117/202%,
in the interest of justice and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
1. PENUMAKA VENKATA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
2. CHETLURU SREENIVAS
The Court made the following:
//3//
CRLPNo.4117 of 2022
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4117 of 2022
ORDER:
The criminal petition is filed seeking to quash FIR.No.224 of 2022,
dated 18.05.2022 on the file of Chandragiri Police Station for the
alleged offence under Section 420, 506 read with 34 of IPC.
2. The petitioner is arraigned as Accused No.2 in the above crime.
The accusation made against the petitioner and other accused is
that the de facto complainant is the owner of the property of the
land in question and the petitioner who is A-2 along with A-4 and
A5 obtained registered sale deed from the de facto complainant
while he was in intoxication state in respect of the said land and
the de facto complainant never intended to sell the said land to
them and as such he was cheated by the petitioner and other
accused.
3. The main grievance against the petitioner is that the petitioner got
executed sale deed for land admeasuring Ac.9.34 cents of
Rangampet Village belonging to the petitioner. It is a specific case
of the 2nd respondent that the petitioner under the guise of
execution of document relating to land admeasuring Ac.9.34 cents
had concealed the documents pertaining to the land at
Rangampet mango Garden. It is stated that the same came to the
//4//
CRLPNo.4117 of 2022
knowledge of the 2nd respondent for obtaining Encumbrance
Certificate (EC).
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
complaint is filed at a belated stage and that there is no truth in
the allegation that the petitioner played fraud on the 2 nd
respondent and stealthily got executed the sale deed relating to
the mango garden belonging to the petitioner. It is also submitted
that the 2nd respondent did not take this ground in the civil suit
filed for injunction vide OS.No.9 of 2022. It is submitted that the
suit was subsequently withdrawn and that no further steps were
taken seeking cancellation of the sale deed etc.,
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on Babu
Venkatesh and others Vs. State of Karnataka and another1,
the abnormal delay in filing a complaint after a period of one and
half year from the date of filing of written statement was
considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the criminal case
was quashed. The learned counsel for the petitioner places
reliance on Sardar Ali Khan Vs. State of Utta Pradesh, through
Principal Secretary, Home Department and another2, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court dealt with the issue of maintainability of a
criminal case when a civil suit is pending on the same subject. It
1
(2022) 5 SCC 639
2
(2020) 12 SCC 51
//5//
CRLPNo.4117 of 2022
was held that when the suit was filed in the year 2008, filing a
criminal complaint in the year 2012 alleging forgery and
impersonation was held as impermissible and the criminal case
was quashed.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further places reliance on
Dilawar Singh Vs. State of Delhi3, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
held that delay in filing a complaint would have to be viewed with
suspicion and delay would at times speak fatal to prosecution.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent appears
virtually online and submits that the investigation has been stayed
by virtue of an interim order passed by this Court on 17.06.2022. It
is submitted that a petition to vacate the interim order was filed
soon after by the 2nd respondent. It is submitted that the
investigation ought to have been completed as several factual
aspects would come out only after investigation is completed.
8. It is also submitted that the 2nd respondent had filed OS.No.9 of
2022 seeking bare injunction against the petitioner as he was
interfering with the possession of the 2nd respondent. The 2nd
respondent realized the fraud played on him by the petitioner and
others and as such withdrew the OS.No.9 of 2022 on 30.07.2022
and filed OS.No.76 of 2022 seeking the relief of declaration of
3
(2007) 12 SCC 641
//6//
CRLPNo.4117 of 2022
ownership and cancellation of sale deed. It is also submitted that
the 2nd respondent has taken all the pleas at para 16 of the plaint
for maintaining the suit seeking the relief of cancellation of
registered sale deed dated 21.10.2019. The criminal case was
filed prior to filing of the civil suit.
9. It is submitted that the sale deed was stealthily got executed by
the accused. It is also submitted that there are as many as 21
cases pending against the petitioner as is noted in the remand
report and that the DC Sheet No.838 is maintained against the
petitioner. It is also submitted that the registration of the sale deed
bearing document No.10855 of 2019, dated 21.10.2019,
registered at SRO, Chandragiri is a sham document without
passing of sale consideration.
10. It is submitted that ends of justice would not be met if the
investigation is scuttled at the preliminary stage itself and prays for
dismissing the quash petition.
11. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant
Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned counsel for the 2nd
respondent. Perused the material on record.
12. The allegations levelled against the petitioner relating to
fraudulently signing of documents would have to be investigated.
//7//
CRLPNo.4117 of 2022
Perused the disputed sale deed. As seen from the recitals of the
sale deed an amount of Rs.1,13,60,000/- is said to be paid by the
petitioner and two others to the 2nd respondent in cash. The
disputed sale deed also bears the thumb impressions of the
executants and the claimants apart from the witnesses.
13. It is also not in dispute that the 2nd respondent executed a deed
relating to the property situated at Madanapalli vide Document
No.377 of 2019 on the joint names of the 2nd respondent and one
P.Nagaraju and the allegation that the process of re-registration of
the said property in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner had
played fraud and got executed a sale deed for an extent of
Ac.Ac.9.34 cents. It is also alleged that the petitioner has
subsequently sold one acre of land to G.Kumar Lalji on
28.12.2020 vide document No.199 of 2021.
14. The demonetisation was announced on 08.11.2016. Execution of
a sale deed for land admeasuring Ac.9.34 cents for allegedly
passing on the entire sale consideration of Rs.1,13,60,000/- in
cash would lead to several unanswered questions on the
executed document.
15. Investigation by the police would reveal the factual aspect
involved and the circumstances under which the disputed sale
deed was executed can be arrived at by the police. The judgments
//8//
CRLPNo.4117 of 2022
relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner do not come
to the rescue of the petitioner as the facts therein and the facts are
on hand are divergently variable. This Court is of the considered
view that ends of justice would be met if the police are given a free
hand in conducting a fair investigation and filing of a final
report/charge sheet after completion of investigation.
16. On the above grounds this Court is not inclined to entertain the
criminal petition filed by the petitioner. Accordingly, the criminal
petition is dismissed. The IA.No.2 of 2022 is hereby allowed. The
interim order granted on 17.06.2022 stands vacated.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stands closed.
____________________
JUSTICE HARINATH.N
Dated 04.07.2025
KGM
//9//
CRLPNo.4117 of 2022
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4117 of 2022
Dated 04.07.2025
KGM
[ad_1]
Source link