Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Sri Dixit Madanial Jain, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 8 December, 2021
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
MAIN CASE No.: Crl.P. No.6933 of 2021
PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl. Office
No DATE ORDER
Note
1. 08.12.2021 CMR, J
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor takes notice for
the 1st respondent/State and requests time to obtain
instructions.
Issue notice to the 2nd respondent returnable in four (4)
weeks.
________
CMR, J
I.A.No.1 of 2021
The version of the prosecution is that the father of the
de facto complainant by name Chinna Venkata Subbaiah
purchased the property in question in the auction conducted
by the Court in E.P.No.13 of 1981 in O.S.No.139 of 1972. After
the demise of her father that she inherited the said property
and she is the owner of the same. Now, it is stated that A-1 to
A-7 executed a GPA in favour of A-7 and A-7 in turn executed
a registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner, who is A-8, in
respect of the said property even though they have no title to
the said property.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
the said auction sale was challenged before this Court in
Appeal Against Order No.1636 of 1992 and the Division Bench
of this Court has set aside the said sale and remanded the
matter to the executing Court for fresh disposal in the light of
the observations made in the said judgment. Therefore, he
would submit that the father of the de facto complainant or the
de facto complainant has no title to the said property at present
and as such the de facto complainant could not have any
grievance in this regard. It is also contended that it is not even
the case of the de facto complainant that her signature was
forged and as such no case is made out for any of the offences
for which the F.I.R is registered.
A copy of the order of the judgment of the Division
Bench of this Court in the matter is placed before this Court. It
is evident from the perusal of the said order that the said sale
was set aside and the matter was remanded to the executing
Court for fresh disposal in the light of observations made in
the said judgment. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends
that the DHR therein did not pursue the matter after the matter
was remanded.
Therefore, when the sale in favour of the father of the de
facto complainant was set aside, as rightly contended by the
learned counsel for the petitioner, the de facto complainant or
her father has no title to the said property at present.
Therefore, the de facto complainant could not have any
grievance in this regard.
In the said facts and circumstances of the case, the
petitioner could make out a strong prima facie case warranting
interference of this Court, in exercise of its inherent powers
under Section 482 Cr.P.C, to examine in the main Criminal
Petition whether launching of criminal proceedings against the
petitioner herein in the given facts and circumstances of the
case amounts to abuse of process of Court or not.
Therefore, there shall be interim stay of further
proceedings including arrest pursuant to registration of F.I.R in
Crime No.300 of 2021 of Chinna Bazar Police Station, SPSR
Nellore District, only against the petitioner herein, who is A-8,
till the next date of hearing.
________
CMR, J
AKN
