Kanakamedala Arun Rakesh Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

¶1

APHC010032132025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶3

AT AMARAVATI

¶4

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 684 OF 2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

Kanakamedala Arun Rakesh, S/o Mallikarjuna Vara Prasad, Aged About 40 Years, Occ: Business, R/o Plot No. 143, Road No 72, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana.

¶9

...Petitioner/Accused No.2

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by S.H.O, Arundalpet P.S., Guntur District, Rep. Through the Public Prosecutor, State of Andhra Pradesh, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati

¶12

M/s KRK Chandra Ventures Pvt Ltd, Rep by its Managing Director, Krothapalli Rajendra Prasad, S/o Sivarama Krishnan, Aged about 60 years, R/o 7-17-287/2 1st Line, Mallikarjunapet, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh.

¶13

Krothapalli Rajendra Prasad, S/o Sivarama Krishnan, Aged about 60 years, Occ: Managing Director, KRK Chandra Ventures Pvt Ltd, R/o 7-17-287/2, 1st Line, Mallikarjunapet, Guntur, Andhra^Pradesh.

¶14

...Respondents/Complainants

¶15

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., r/w Section 528 of BNSS, praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to Quash the^{F.I.R.No.217of2024} dated 23.07.2024, registered/lodged on the file of Arundalpet PS, Guntur District.

¶16

lA NO: 2 OF 2025

¶17

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying that^{inthecircumstances} stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings, including stay of arrest of the Petitioner in F.I.R.No.217 of 2024 dated 23.07.2024, registered/lodged on the file of Arundalpet PS, Guntur District pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri N.Ashwani Kumar, Advocate Counsel for Respondent No.1; The Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 & 3: Sri G.Elisha,^Advocate The Court made the following order:

¶19

APHC010032132025

¶20

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

¶21

[3457]

¶22

FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶23

PRESENT

¶24

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 684/2025

¶25

Between:

¶26

1.KANAKAMEDALA ARUN RAKESH, S/o.MALLIKARJUNA VARA PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS OCC- BUSINESS, R/0 PLOT NO. 143, ROAD NO 72, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD, TELANGANA.

¶27

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶28

AND

¶29

1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY S.H.O, ARUNDALPET P.S., GUNTUR DISTRICT, REP. THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶30

M/S KRK CHANDRA VENTURES PVT LTD, REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, KROTHAPALLI RAJENDRA PRASAD, S/0 SIVARAMA KRISHNAN, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/0 7- 17-287/2, 1ST LINE, MALLIKARJUNAPET, GUNTUR, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶31

KROTHAPALLI RAJENDRA PRASAD, S/0 SIVARAMA KRISHNAN, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCCMANAGING DIRECTOR, KRK CHANDRA VENTURES PVT LTD, R/0 7-17287/2, 1ST LINE, MALLIKARJUNAPET, GUNTUR, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶32

...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^Memorandumof Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Courtmay be pleased to Quash the F.I.R.No.217 of 2024 dated 23.07.2024, registered/lodged^onthe file of Arundalpet PS, Guntur District, in the interest of equity and justice while exercising its inherent jurisdiction^{underSection482} of Cr.P.C r/w Section 528 of BNSS to the extent of the Petitioner herein and pass

II2II

CRLP.No.684 of 2025

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

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 may be pleased to grant dispense-with filing of the certified copy of^{F.I.R.No.217of2024} dated 23.07.2024, registered/ lodged on the file of Arundalpet PS, Guntur District, pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition and pass

¶37

lA NO: 2 OF 2025

¶38

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 may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings, including stay^ofarrest of the Petitioner in F.I.R.No.217 of 2024 dated 23.07.2024, registered/lodged on the file of Arundalpet PS, Guntur District pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition and pass

¶39

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

¶40

1.N ASHWANI KUMAR

¶41

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

¶42

1.G ELISHA

¶43

2.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶44

The Court made the following :

¶45

//3//

¶46

CRLP.No.684 of 2025

¶47

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N

¶48

CRIMINAL PETITION No.684 of 2025

¶49

ORDER:

¶50

The petitioner is arraigned as accused No.2 and is seeking quash of Crime No.217 of 2024 on the file of Arundalpet^Police Station, Guntur District registered for alleged offences under Sections 109, 120-B, 323, 324, 341,406, 427, 447 of^IPC.

¶51

Sri Y.V. Ravi Prasad, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the petitioner was falsely implicated in a case that is purely civil in nature^andhasbeen conveniently converted into a criminal case. It is^{submittedthata} private complaint was filed, and the complaint was^{referredtothe} police for investigation. The learned Magistrate, vide^orderdated 12.07.2024, directed the complaint to be registered^attheStation

¶52

House Officer, Arundalpet Police Station, and to report^tothe Court after investigation.

¶53

It is submitted that the private complaint could not have been considered for referral to the police, as the 2^^ respondent^did not file the sworn affidavit as is mandatory.

¶54

It is also submitted that OS.No.598 of 2021 is filed by the 2"'' respondent against the accused No.1 represented by the

¶55

//4//

¶56

CRLP.No.684 of 2025

¶57

petitioner herein as defendant No.1 in the suit, apart^fromtwo other defendants. It is submitted that similar averments are made in the plaint and the complaint insofar as the allegation relating to the alleged interjecting and obstruction to the passage^towards the eastern side of the 2'^^ respondent's property is concerned. The alleged obstruction and interjection of the passage is the subject of the civil suit, where a prayer for the grant of a permanent injunction restraining the defendants therein from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment^ofthe passage is prayed for.

¶58

It is submitted that, in the criminal complaint the 2'^^ respondent has alleged that the petitioner has committed various offences, a complaint was filed initially on 09.08.2021 and again on 21.12.2021 and that the police did not act on the complaints, as such, complaint dated 30.04.2022 was sent to the DGP,^DIGand SP of police through registered post. It is alleged that the petitioner, along with others, created a galata on^{28.02.2023and} caused damage to the property, and also threatened^towithdraw OS.No.598 of 2021. It is alleged that, aggrieved by^theinaction of the police, a private complaint was filed.

¶59

The learned senior counsel submits that on the facts of the case even if the allegations in the complaint are to be taken as true,

¶60

//5//

¶61

CRLP.No.684 of 2025

¶62

the dispute relates to the right of pathway and the right of the pathway is a matter of civil dispute and the appropriate remedy for redressing any of those grievances would have to be essentially a civil Court. It is also submitted that^{afalsecriminal} complaint is filed solely to exert pressure on the petitioner.

¶63

It is submitted that the complaint is motivated and filed solely to harass the petitioner. The learned senior counsel places^reliance on Priyanka Srivastava and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others'*. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had^heldthat applications under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. are to be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the applicant. The affidavit^wouldmake the applicant more responsible. Ramdev Food Products Private Limited Vs. State of Gujarat^. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a direction under Section 156(3) of^Cr.P.C. is to be issued only after the learned Magistrate has applied their mind. Usha Chakraborty and another Vs. State of West Bengal and another^. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when a dispute is essentially civil in nature and is given a cloak of a criminal offence. The High Court should not hesitate to quash the case.

¶64

^(2015) 6 see 287

¶65

'(2015) 6 see 439

¶66

^2023) 15 see 135

¶67

//6//

¶68

CRLP.No.684 of 2025

¶69

Sri.Posani Venkateswarlu, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, submits that the respondents 2 and 3 and the petitioner are in possession^oftwo different properties which are adjacent, and there is a common pathway which has formed the genesis for the dispute.

¶70

It is also submitted that the trial Court, on merits, granted an interim injunction on 15.07.2021, restraining the respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment^of the passage towards the east, connecting to Brodipet.

¶71

It is further submitted that the petitioner is arraigned as respondent No.2 and is aware of the injunction that^restrainsthe petitioner and the other defendants of the suit from interfering with the possession of the 2nd respondent over the passage. In such circumstances, the attempt of the petitioner to trespass and cause damage to the property forms the genesis of the complaint.

¶72

It is also submitted that the petitioner has not challenged the cognizance taken order, but instead challenged the registration of FIR. It is submitted that the police are under a statutory obligation to register an FIR after receipt of the complaint from the learned Magistrate. Such action of the police cannot^be sought to be quashed.

¶73

inn

¶74

CRLP.No.684 of 2025

¶75

The learned senior counsel further submits that the petitioner has not raised the ground of non-compliance with the directions^of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Priyanka^Srivatsava's case with respect to filing of an sworn affidavit is concerned, no such ground was raised and without raising such a ground^the order of the learned Magistrate cannot be challenged.

¶76

The learned senior counsel places reliance on the judgment of this Court in the matter of Sita Venkata Ramana Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and two others'*, held that registration^ofa crime by the police on the directions of a learned Magistrate does not suffer from any illegality. The learned Judge^alsoheld that without taking a ground in the petition regarding noncompliance of the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme^Courtinthe matter of Priyanka Srivatsava's case, the same cannot^beraised at the time of arguments.

¶77

The learned senior counsel further submits that the complaint is filed within the period of limitation under Section^468ofCr.P.C. As such, the complaint filed is distinct from the dispute regarding the passage.

¶78

It is submitted that the petitioner also filed^OS.No.426 of 2021 against third parties and sought an injunction for^scheduleA,B,

¶79

" CRLP.No.8356 of 2022, decided on 30.10.2023

¶80

10,11

¶81

CRLP.No.684 of 2025

¶82

C, D, E, F and G properties. It is submitted that the dispute is not about the schedule of properties for which the petitioner sought an injunction. The dispute is with regard to the obstruction caused by the petitioner over the 40 feet common passage.

¶83

Heard the learned senior counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the respondents, and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state.

¶84

The short point for consideration is whether the complaint filed against the petitioner deserves to be quashed on the grounds raised for seeking the relief.

¶85

Admittedly, the civil dispute is pending before^theJunior Civil Judge's Court, Guntur vide OS.No.598 of 2021, and is pending disposal. The property schedule in the suit would show^a40-foot internal road through the Becker compound's main gate, leading to Amaravati Road.

¶86

It is not in dispute that the learned Junior Civil Judge had granted an injunction on 15.07.2021, and the respondents therein are under an obligation to honour the order of the Court^and not interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of passage towards the east connecting to Brodipet.

¶87

//9//

¶88

CRLP.No.684 of 2025

¶89

It is also not in dispute that the learned Junior Civil Judge granted an injunction in favour of the petitioner over schedule A, B, C, D, E, F and G properties vide order dated 14.05.2021.

¶90

A complaint alleging trespass onto the lease property/passag^eof the complainants, and causing damage to the complainants' property by removing and demolishing the fencing was initially made on 09.08.2021. It is also alleged in the complaint that accused Nos. 1 to 3 had placed zinc sheets with iron^frameson the eastern side and arranged a gate, which they have locked, resulting in the prevention of the complainant from accessing the said gate for ingress and egress. When this was questioned, it is alleged that the complainants were pressurized to withdraw OS.No. 598 of 2021 and to relinquish the eastern side passage. The same was submitted along with photographs to the^Station House Officer on 20.12.2021. The police denied extending any aid as the matter was pending before the Civil Court.

¶91

This Court directed the police not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner vide an interim order dated^24.01.2025. The complaint as filed is not confined to the overlap of a dispute which is pending before a Civil Court. The civil Court had granted an injunction with respect to the 40-foot passage on^theeastern side. There could have been no occasion for the petitioner^orthe

¶92

//10//

¶93

CRLP.No.684 of 2025

¶94

Other accused to overstep the orders of the Court and cause damage to the property therein.

¶95

The facts of the case cannot be brushed aside as purely civil in nature. When allegations of offences under Sections 109, 120-B, 323, 324, 341, 406, 427, 447 of IPC are made, it would be prudent for the police to complete the investigation^{andfileafinal} report/ charge sheet after completion of the investigation. Merely because the civil disputes are pending between the parties, the same cannot entitle one of the parties to the civil dispute to take the law into their hands and resort to the commission of any illegal acts and thereafter take the shelter of pendency^ofthecivil suit and seek quash of the criminal complaint.

¶96

On these grounds, this Court is of the view that the police ought to be given a free hand to complete the investigation, more so when the complaint states explicitly the presence of independent witnesses who witnessed the alleged illegal acts of the petitioner and others. This is one of such cases that does not deserve the quashing of the FIR at the threshold. The registration^ofanFIR by the police on the directions of the learned Magistrate^cannot be faulted with at this stage.

¶97

As rightly argued by the learned senior counsel for respondents 2 and 3, the order of the learned Magistrate directing the police

¶98

//11//

¶99

CRLP.No.684 of 2025

¶100

to register an FIR and investigate is not under challenge. Thus, registration of an FIR by the police on the directions of the learned Magistrate cannot be challenged, as the police are dutybound to register the FIR upon receipt of directions from the learned Magistrate.

¶101

The complaint as filed cannot be brushed aside as civil in nature. More so, when the respondent has alleged in the complaint^that photographic evidence of the alleged excess of the petitioner was placed before the police. The judgments cited by the learned counsel appearing for the cannot be made applicable^to the facts of this case as the complaint filed by the 2’^'^ respondent is not in relation to any commercial transaction between the petitioner and the respondents 2 and 3. On the facts of this case, the pendency of civil disputes between the parties is independent of the alleged offences under Sections 109, 120-B, 323, 324, 341, 406, 427, 447 of IPC. As such, the police are required to investigate.

¶102

This Court finds no grounds to interfere with the investigation of the crime registered against the petitioner and others as no grounds are made out which warrant the exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of

¶103

null

¶104

CRLP.No.684 of 2025

¶105

Cr.P.C., (528 of BNSS) and quash of Crime No.217 of²⁰²⁴ on the file of Arundalpet Police Station, Guntur District.

¶106

Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed, and it is left open for the police to complete the investigation in accordance^with the law and file the final report/ charge sheet after completing the investigation.

¶107

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

¶108

//TRUE COPY//

¶109

Sd/- K KASIRAO ACHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // ^

¶110

SECTION OFFICER

¶111

To,

¶112