.Gummadi Venkateswariu Vs Munnam Venkata Nageswara… — Anticipatory Bail | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

.Gummadi Venkateswariu Vs Munnam Venkata Nageswara… — Anticipatory Bail | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Criminal Petition allowed; criminal proceedings against the petitioners in FIR No.2 of 2020 (Kothapatnam Police Station, Prakasam District) quashed; respondent No.1 not precluded from working out remedies for recovery of money allegedly taken by the wife of the Managing Director for extension of the lease; miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, stand closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal proceedings against the petitioners/accused in FIR No.2 of 2020, arising from a lease dispute (non-renewal of lease, alleged taking of Rs. 3,50,000/-, trespass and damage to property, and threats), are liable to be quashed as an abuse of the process of law under Section 482 CrPC. +1 more

Court's answer

The lease agreement between the petitioners' company and respondent No.1 is not in dispute and shows that the lease ended in December 2018; the lease could only be extended with the consent of both parties, and it is undisputed that it was not extended further.

Ratio / Principle

The alleged crime is of the year 2019, by which time the lease had already ended; therefore respondent No.1 cannot claim ownership of the property.

Key takeaways

The question of trespassing does not arise to attract the offence; entry upon the property with the intention to commit an offence is not evident from the contents of the complaint.ratio¶44
Continuing the criminal proceedings against the petitioners is a mere abuse of the process of law.ratio¶44

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Procedure - Quashing of FIR - Section 482 CrPC read with Section 528 BNSS - FIR No.2/2020, Kothapatnam Police Station, Prakasham District - Dispute arose out of a lease agreement (executed 2013) between the petitioners' company and respondent No.1; the lease ended in December 2018 and was admittedly not extended for want of mutual consent - Alleged offences dated 2019, i.e., after expiry of the lease, so respondent No.1 could not claim ownership of the property - Allegation that petitioner No.2, wife of the Managing Director, took Rs. 3,50,000/- towards lease extension is essentially a civil recovery matter - Entry upon the property after lease expiry does not attract trespass absent an intention to commit an offence, which is not evident from the complaint - Continuation of criminal proceedings a mere abuse of the process of law - Petition allowed; proceedings in FIR quashed; liberty reserved to respondent No.1 to pursue civil remedies for recovery of the money (Dr Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, J.; decided 23.07.2025).

[3396]

APHC010006632020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 118/2020

Between:

.GUMMADI VENKATESWARIU, S/O. KOTAIAH, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/O. 7-5-96, NIRMAL NAGAR, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DLISTRICT.

SMT.GUMMADI AYALAKSVENKATESWARIU, HMI, W/O NIRMAL NAGAR, AGED 60 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, R/O7-5-96, ONGOLE, PRAKASHAM DISTRICT.

GUMMADI RAGHUNATH,, S/O VENKATESW ARALU, AGED 39 YEARS, R/O. 7-5-96, NIRMAL NAG, ONGOLE, PRAKASHAM DISTRICT.

KATAKAMSETTI BABU VIJAY,, S/O RAMAKRISHNA, AGED 39 YEARS, R/O.2-119, RAMALAYAMVEEDHI, KANNAYYA KUMADAVALLI, WEST GODACARI DISTRICT. 5. NANNURI VENKATESWARLU, S/O. RAMANAYYA, AGED 50 YEARS, R/O. NETIVARIPALEM, PRAKASHAM DISTRICT. 6.NANNURI SRINIVASA RAO, S/O. RAMANAYYA, AGED 46 YEARS, R/O. SOWMYA APARTMENTS, PANTAKALUVA ROAD, NEW POSTAL COLONY, VIJAYAWADA URBAN, KRISHNA DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)

AND

MUNNAM VENKATA NAGESWARA REDDY, S/O. KRISHNAMURTHY REDDY, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O. PEDAGANJAM VILLAGE, CHINA GANJAM MANDAI, PRAKASHAM DISTRICT.

2

THE STATE OF A P, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, AMARAVATHI

...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 Courtpleased to quash FIR No.2/2020, dated 04.01.2020 on the file of Kothapatnam Police Station, Prakasham District

IA NO: 1 OF 2020

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 dispense with filing of the certified copy of the complaint in FIR No.2/2020, dated 04.01.2020 on the file of Kothapatnam Police Station, Prakasham District

IA NO: 2 OF 2020

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 stay all further proceedings including arrest of the petitioners in FIR No.2/2020, dated 04.01.2020 on the file of Kothapatnam Police Station, Prakasham District, pending the Criminal Petition before this Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):

1.RAJA REDDY KONETI

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

1.INAKOLLU VENKATESWARLU

2.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)

3

The Court made the following:

ORDER :

The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed, by the Petitioners/Accused, seeking quashment of the proceedings against them in FIR No.2 of 2020, on the file of Kothapatnam Police Station, Prakasham District.

Heard Sri Raja Reddy Koneti, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri I.Venkateswarlu, learned counsel for the respondent No.2, Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that there is a lease agreement between the petitioners’ company and respondent No.1, which was executed in the year 2013. By the date of the alleged commission of the crime, the lease had expired. Learned counsel would further submit that the contents of the complaint indicate that the grievance of the complainant is that the lease was not extended for a second time. Learned counsel would further submit that it is alleged against petitioner No.2, who is the wife of the Managing Director, that she took Rs. 3,50,000/- from respondent No.1 despite the fact that the lease was not extended. Instead of renewing the lease, they allegedly trespassed on the property of respondent No.1 and caused damage to the property; that is why the case has been registered. When respondent No.1 questioned the petitioners, he was allegedly threatened with dire consequences. Learned counsel would further submit that it is a purely civil

4

dispute. When the lease agreement is between the company and respondent No.1, the question of extending the lease by the wife of one of the directors does not arise. Learned counsel would further submit that continuing criminal proceedings against the petitioners is a mere abuse of the process of law.

Learned counsel for respondent No.1 would submit that the grievance of the complainant regarding the non-renewal of the lease and the recovery of money from the wife of one of the directors may be a matter of civil nature. Learned counsel would further submit that it is a case where the petitioners trespassed on the land of respondent No.1 and caused damage to the land. They have obtained a stay at the threshold of the matter at the crime stage. Accordingly, learned counsel prays for the dismissal of the petition.

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor supported the case of the complainant and would submit that the police may be permitted to conduct an investigation in this matter.

In reply, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the period of the lease is over, and the extension of the lease depends on the consent of both parties. When the petitioners did not choose to extend the lease to respondent No.1, they had nothing to do with the property of the petitioners. Admittedly, it is the property of the petitioners’ company.

Considering the submissions made and upon a fair look at the material

placed on record, the lease agreement filed along with the petition is not in dispute and shows that the lease ended in December 2018. As rightly put by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the lease could only be extended with

5

the consent of both parties. The alleged crime is of the year 2019, by which time the lease had already ended. That being the case, respondent No.1 cannot claim ownership of the property. For reasons best known to both parties, it is undisputed that the lease was not extended further.

In that view, the question of trespassing does not arise to attract the offence. The petitioners would have had to enter the property with the intention to commit an offence, which is not evident from the contents of the complaint. In that view, continuing the criminal proceedings against the petitioners is a mere abuse of the process of law.

In the result, this Criminal Petition is allowed, quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioners in FIR No.2 of 2020, on the file of Kothapatnam Police Station, Prakasam District. However, this does not preclude respondent No.1 from working out remedies for recovery of money allegedly taken by the wife of the Managing Director for the extension of the lease.

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

_______________________________________ Dr.VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J

Date: 23.07.2025 MH

6

129

HON’BLE Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

Crl.P.No.118 of 2020

Dt.23.07.2025

MH