Dismissed

A.Varalakshmi v. State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC4 Dec 2023CRLP/2712/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge dismissed a criminal petition quashing criminal proceedings in a case involving alleged land trespass and forgery. The court held that mere pendency of a civil suit or civil dispute does not justify quashing criminal proceedings and factual allegations require adjudication by the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition No.2712 of 2019 dismissed; pending interlocutory applications closed.

A.Varalakshmi Vs State of Ap — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION No.2712 OF 2019

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The present Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.27 of 2019 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mangalagiri, pending against the petitioners/A1 to A3 for the offences under Sections 420, 447, 463, 464, 465, 506 I.P.C. r/w Section 34 I.P.C. and Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.

¶5

The 2^nd respondent-de facto complainant filed a private complaint under Sections 190 and 200 Cr.P.C., alleging that all the accused are tried to trespass into her land and they threatened her to do away with her life. The said complaint was referred to the police under Section 156(2) Cr.P.C. on the reference made by the learned Additional Junior Civil Judgecum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mangalagiri, the police after due investigation, has laid a charge sheet stating that the accused have created forged document and criminally trespassed into the land of the de facto complainant and threatened L.Ws.4 and 6 and their mother and got registered the land in the name of A1 which belongs to L.Ws.5 and 6.

¶6

¶7

After filing the charge sheet, learned Magistrate has registered the charge sheet as C.C.No.27 of 2019, which is assailed before this Court by the petitioners, who are arrayed as accused in the above Calendar Case, on the ground that there is a civil dispute between the petitioners-accused and the de facto complainant-2^nd respondent herein and they also belong to one family and they have filed a suit for injunction and it is pending for adjudication and the 2^nd respondent with false allegations, filed a case against the petitioners/accused, hence, sought to quash the present Calendar Case.

¶8

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-de facto complainant would submit that as per the contents of the charge sheet, the petitioners have forged the document and obtained the property and got it registered in their name and no civil dispute was converted into criminal case and mere pendency of civil suit is not a ground to quash the proceedings and further submits that no temporary injunction is granted in the civil suit filed, vide O.S.No.266 of 2017 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, to claim that the petitioners-accused were in possession of the property. Hence, prays to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

¶9

¶10

As held by the Apex Court in catena of judgments, mere pendency of civil suit is not a ground to quash the proceedings and the present civil dispute is not converted into criminal case and in the charge sheet, it is stated that the petitioners, who are arrayed as accused in the Calendar Case, with an evil intention, have forged the document and got the property of the complainant registered in their name. The essential ingredients of cheating are that fraudulent intention and mens rea and the question as to whether there is mens rea or not is to be adjudicated before the trial Court and this Court found no legal ground raised in the present Criminal Petition. And it is needless to mention that factual matrix that falls for determination is not a ground for quashment of proceedings, either FIR or complaint. And the ground raised herein is a pure question of fact and no law is involved that can be decided without reference to the facts of the case. Hence, this Court found no reason to quash the proceedings, as the matter relates to adjudication before the trial Court by leading evidence.

¶11

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

¶12

¶13

As a sequel, interlocutory applications, pending if any in

¶14

this case, shall stand closed.

¶15

JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

¶16

Date: 04.12.2023 siva

¶17

¶18

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

¶19

CRIMINAL PETITION No.2712 OF 2019

¶20

Date: 04.12.2023

¶21

siva

A.Varalakshmi v. State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Varalakshmi v. State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.Jayasree Vs State of Ap

Seelam Bala Raju Vs Seelam Durga Surya Kumari

A. Siva Rami Reddy, S/o. a.Siva Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its

Eda Suresh Lal Vs Neetal John Ratnam

B.Nanda Kishore Vs State of Ap

Islavath Venkatesh Naik Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh