Partly allowed

Beeram Subbamma v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC17 Mar 2016CRLP/3598/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings against two petitioners (accused witnesses) in a property dispute case due to lack of evidence implicating them, while the vendor petitioner must substantiate her claim of genuine purchase.

What did the court decide?

Quashed proceedings against petitioners 2 and 3; presence of petitioner 1 dispensed with except for specific trial dates.

Beeram Subbamma Vs The State of Telangana — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION No.3598 OF 2016

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-Accused Nos.3 to 5 under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to transfer C.C.No.23 of 2016 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District.

¶4

Heard and perused the material available on record.

¶5

It is alleged that A1 to A3 misrepresented that A3 has purchased landed property of Ac.0.91 cents in Sy.No.5/2 situated in Buggaletipalle village fields of C.K. Dinne Mandal, Kadapa District from A2 and thereby induced the 2^nd respondent-complainant and L.W.3-G. Shoba to purchase the said property under a registered sale deed dated 2.1.2012 from A3 for consideration of Rs.60,00,000/-. While so, the 2^nd respondent came to know that in the year 2005 itself, the wife of elder brother of A1 viz., U. Rajeswari and her children filed a suit against A1 and A2 in respect of the said property and the said suit was decreed against A1 and A2 declaring half share over the property. The said Rajeswari filed E.P., wherein an advocatecommissioner was also appointed to conduct survey and divide the said property. On coming to know about the same, the 2^nd respondent and L.W.3 approached all the accused, questioned them. But the accused threatened them. Hence, the 2^nd respondent filed a private complaint.

¶6

From the material available on record, it is evident that petitioners 2 and 3 are the witnesses to the document registered in favour of the 2^nd respondent and L.W.3, whereas the 1^st petitioner is the vendor of the 2^nd respondent. The entire reading of the charge sheet does not disclose about the involvement of the petitioners Nos.2 and 3 except the fact that they signed as witnesses to the document

¶7

registered in favour of the 2^nd respondent and L.W.3. In view of the same, this Court is of the view that continuation of the proceedings against them would amount to abuse of process of Courts. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the proceedings against petitioners No.2 and 3-A4 and A5.

¶8

Insofar as the 1^st petitioner-A3 is concerned, it is her duty to rebut the evidence adduced by the prosecution. She has to adduce evidence to the effect that she is the genuine purchaser and she does not know the earlier litigations between A1 and A2 and U. Rajeswari. This Court is not inclined to grant any relief in this petition to her. However, her presence before the trial Court is dispensed with except on the dates when her presence is specifically required by the trial Court. The 1^st petitioner shall be represented by a Counsel before the trial Court on all hearing dates.

¶9

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is partly allowed quashing the proceedings against petitioners No.2 and 3-A4 and A5 in the above C.C.No.23 of 2016 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any shall stand closed.

¶10

______________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

¶11

Date : 17.3.2016 Nn

¶12

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

¶13

CRIMINAL PETITION No.3598 OF 2016

¶14

DATED 17.3.2016

¶15

Beeram Subbamma v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Beeram Subbamma v. The State of Telangana

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

Pampana Sreenu Vs The State of A.P.

Kodi Eshwar Rao Vs The State of Telangana.,rep.,Pp

Anoop Shankar Goud, Vs v.Malakomdaiah

Lavanya,Lasaya,Sravani Vs The State of Telangana

Gugulothu Rajesh Vs The State of Telangana.,rep.,Pp

K.Uma Shankara Rao Vs Sri B.S.Chakaravarthy