Allowed

Annamdevula Veera Venkata Satyanarayana , Chanti, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC8 Nov 2012CRLP/2139/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Petition under Section 482 CrPC filed by accused No.3 to quash proceedings for cheating and forgery. Court allowed the petition, quashing charges against the petitioner, citing an ongoing civil dispute and prior court observations deeming the case maintainable only if confirmed by a civil decree.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings against petitioner-Accused No.3 in C.C.No.742 of 2009 are quashed.

Annamdevula Veera Venkata Satyanarayana , Chanti, Vs The… — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION No.2139 OF 2010

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.3 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.742 of 2009 on the file of the III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajahmundry.

¶5

Heard and perused the material available on record.

¶6

The 2^nd respondent herein through her the then GPA holder Yadali Rambabu got filed a private complaint against the petitioner and two others for the offences punishable under Sections 455, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B r/w Section 34 IPC. It is alleged that all the accused in the above C.C conspired together and fabricated a sale agreement and the petitioner got issued a notice dated 22.8.2003 through A1 and A2 in the present case for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 30.6.1994 in their favour by the de facto complainant by executing a regular sale deed.

¶7

On an earlier occasion, accused Nos.1 and 2 in the above C.C., approached this Court by filing Crl.P.No.2966 of 2010 under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to quash the proceedings against them and this Court allowed the said Criminal Petition quashing the proceedings against A1 and A2 in the above C.C., on the ground that the decree granted by the Civil Court for specific performance of the agreement of sale in favour of A1 and A2 would lend support to the claim of A1 and A2 and no case is made out against A1 and A2.

¶8

The allegation against the petitioner-A3 is that he abetted A1 and A2 and got issued a notice to the de facto complainant. In view of the fact that there is a civil battle between the accused and the 2^nd respondent and in view of the observations made by this Court in the earlier Criminal Petition, this Court is of the view that the proceedings against the petitioner-A3 cannot be maintained and hence, they are

¶9

liable to be quashed.

¶10

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the proceedings against the petitioner-A3 in C.C.No.742 of 2009 on the file of the III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajahmundry. Consequently, the miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this petition, stand closed.

¶11

_____________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

¶12

Dated : 8.11.2012 Nn

¶13

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

¶14

CRIMINAL PETITION No.2139 OF 2010

¶15

8.11.2012

¶16

Annamdevula Veera Venkata Satyanarayana , Chanti, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Annamdevula Veera Venkata Satyanarayana , Chanti, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gudipally Chandrashekar Reddy , Chandu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

V.Venkataram Sandeep, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sanka Srinivasa Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Yalavarthi Siva Sankar, Vs The State of A.P.

M.Suresh, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Satti Mangayamma and 2 Others Vs Mallid Seetha Bhavani , Bhavani and Another