B. Reddeppa Reddy, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh.
2022 Latest Caselaw 5132 AP

  THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

          CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7739 OF 2019

ORDER:-

     This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, „CrPC‟), is filed to

quash the proceedings against the petitioners, who are A1

to A5 and A7, in C.C. No.63 of 2018, pending on the file of

the II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada for the offences

punishable under Sections 420, 406, 465, 468, 471 r/w

120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, „IPC‟).


     2.    The Additional Superintendent of Police, C.I.D.,

Regional Office, Kurnool, laid the charge sheet with the

following averments.

     The   Church      of   South   India   Trust   Association

(C.S.I.T.A.) was constituted as a legal body for holding

movable and immovable properties of the Church of South

India (CSI), which came into existence in September, 1947,

and that the C.S.I.T.A. was registered under the Indian

Companies Act as a religious and charitable company. The

administration of C.S.I.T.A. is in accordance with its

manual containing rules and regulations. The jurisdiction

of C.S.I.T.A. covers 20 Dioceses and the properties of

Dioceses will be maintained by the local Bishops who are

the heads of the administrative unit of Dioceses. The
                                 2




Diocesan   Executive    shall       nominate   four   (4)   names

including the name of the Bishop, Secretary, Treasurers

and one other to be appointed as Attorney by the C.S.I.T.A.

The C.S.I.T.A. issues Power of Attorney in favour of four (4)

persons in Diocese in whom who can jointly act on behalf

of the C.S.I.T.A. The power so granted is valid for two (2)

years. In respect of transactions where immovable property

is involved, it shall be obligatory on the part of the Bishop

or one of the other Attorneys nominated by him specifically

for each registration to be one of the Signatories.

     Accordingly for Kadapa Diocese, C.S.I.T.A. issued

Power of Attorney in favour of

     1. Rt.Rev.K.B.Yesu Vara Prasad, Bishop, Rayalaseema
        Diocese, Kadapa
     2. Rev. M. Manohar, Secreatary, Rayalaseema
        Diocesan Office, Kadapa
     3. MR. Y.M. Johnson, Treasurer, Rayalaseema
        Diocese, Kadapa
     4. Mr. Y.S. Prakash Reddy, Member, Administrative
        Committee, Rayalaseema Diocesan Office, Kadapa.


     Either the Bishop or one of the three (3) persons

nominated by him on his behalf and one out of the

remaining two (2) will be signatories for the transactions

involving immovable properties. On 09.02.2005, in a

meeting held by the C.S.I.T.A. Committee of Management,

it was approved for sale of Ac.7.75 cents of land situated in

Anantapuram Town for consideration of Rs.1.25 Crores in

favour of A5. In fact, its cost as per the letter of Joint Sub-
                                    3




Registrar, Anantapuram was Rs.3,18,83,500/-. But, since

the purchaser did not turn up, the Resolution passed by

the   C.S.I.T.A.    was   lapsed       on   31.3.2006.        Then   Mr.

G.J.Simon, Good Team Building Associates, Anantapuram

expressed his willingness to purchase the said land in as is

where is condition for a price of Rs.100.00 Lakhs and paid

an amount of Rs.10.00 lakhs towards advance to the

Diocese. After detailed discussion, C.S.I.T.A. Committee

Management         resolved    vide     Resolution        No.25A     on

10.02.2007 to approve the sale of Ac.1.00 of vacant land

including old bungalow out of the total Ac.7.75 cents of

land to the said G.J.Simon on certain terms.                         On

19.3.2007, A6 addressed a letter to A4 by enclosing

C.S.I.T.A. Management Resolution No.25A, dated 10.2.2007

as if the C.S.I.T.A. Committee approved the sale of Ac.7.75

cents of vacant land including the old bungalow to

G.J. Simon and his nominee at the rate of Rs.100.00 Lakhs

subject to some terms. But, on 14.8.2007, he addressed a

letter to A7 expressing his inability in purchasing of

Ac.7.75 cents of land due to his financial difficulties and

wished to take up venture with BNR Constructions,

Anantapur.     Then       A7   addressed         a     letter   to   Dr.

B.P.Sughandar,        Moderator,        C.S.I.       Synod,     Chennai

informing that G.J.Simon‟s inability in proceeding with the

project on his own, but his wish to proceed in a joint
                              4




venture with BNR Constructions, for which A1 is his

working partner and requested Dr. B.P.Sughandar to

accept the proposal. On the very same day on 14.8.2007,

A7 addressed a letter to A4 stating that he authorized the

A1 to deal with the purchase of the said land. Then, on

04.9.2007, A7 addressed a letter to A6 that the extent of

land was erroneously indicated as Ac.1.00 cents of land

instead of Ac.7.75 cents and hence to rectify the same. It

was with an intention to escape from the offence when A6

has already sent a forged Resolution No.25A, dated

10.2.2007 to the A4 on 19.3.2007 itself.

     In the course of investigation, all the documents

produced by A4, the letters as well as the fake resolutions,

were seized and the documents containing admitted as well

as disputed signatures were forwarded to F.S.L., Hyderabad

and received report. It is further stated that as per the

investigation the C.S.I.T.A., Chennai resolved to sell only

Ac.1.00 cents of land including old bungalow therein out of

total Ac.7.75 cents of land for Rs.100.00 Lakhs to

G.J.Simon vide Resolution No.25A, dated 10.2.2007. But,

on his inability to purchase and when intimated the same

to A5 who is close relative of YSR CP leaders, and A2, being

an Ex.M.L.A. belongs to YSR CP, A5 suggested to A1 to A3,

partners of BNR Constructions, to purchase the land and

that A4 made G.J.Simon to address letter to A7 about his
                               5




inability to take up project and wished to go for joint

venture with BNR Constructions and then the A1 to A3

conspired with A4, A5 and A7 to grab entire land of Ac.7.75

cents and informed the same to A6 who in turn created a

fake/forged Resolution No.25A, dated 10.2.2007 and then

sale deed was created in favour of BNR Constructions,

represented by A1 and got it registered and the sale

transaction   was suppressed      from C.S.I.T.A. with        an

intention to cheat it. Thus the charge sheet against all the

accused for the offences alleged to have committed by

them.

     3.   Heard     learned   senior    counsel   Sri    Vedula

Venkataramana, appearing for the petitioners and the

learned Additional Public Prosecutor for 1st respondent-

State and Sri G.Udaya Bhaskar, learned counsel for 2nd

respondent.

4. Learned senior counsel appearing for the

petitioners contended that 2nd respondent/complainant has

no locus standi to file the present complaint since he is no

way connected to the transactions alleged and he is a total

stranger to the case; that he has nothing to do with the

subject property and he has no right or title over the same.

The learned senior counsel further submitted that even

accepting the entire accusations in the charge sheet to be

true, the dispute is purely civil in nature, and because of

the complaint given by 2nd respondent/complainant, who is

no way connected to the said transaction, police

investigated into the case and filed the charge sheet. The

learned senior counsel also submitted that there is

abnormal delay in filing the complaint by an unconnected

person, and hence, continuation of the impugned

proceedings against the petitioners is nothing but abuse of

process of Court.

In support of his contentions, the learned senior

counsel relied on decisions -

(a) in Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of

Investigation1, wherein it is held thus: (paragraphs 47, 48

and 55)

"47. We have already mentioned above that even if CBI did not implicate the appellants, if there was/is sufficient material on record to proceed against these persons as well, the Special Judge is duly empowered to take cognizance against these persons as well. Under Section 190 of the Code, any Magistrate of First Class (and in those cases where Magistrate of the Second Class is specially empowered to do so) may take cognizance of any offence under the following three eventualities:

(a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence;

(b) upon a police report of such facts; and

(2015) 4 SCC 609

(c) upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge, that such offence has been committed. This section which is the starting section of Chapter XIV is subject to the provisions of the said Chapter. The expression "taking cognizance" has not been defined in the Code. However, when the Magistrate applies his mind for proceeding under Sections 200-203 of the Code, he is said to have taken cognizance of an offence. This legal position is explained by this Court in Chief Enforcement Officer v. Videocon International Ltd. [(2008) 2 SCC 492 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 471] in the following words : (SCC p. 499, para 19) "19. The expression „cognizance‟ has not been defined in the Code. But the word (cognizance) is of indefinite import. It has no esoteric or mystic significance in criminal law. It merely means „become aware of‟ and when used with reference to a court or a Judge, it connoted „to take notice of judicially‟. It indicates the point when a court or a Magistrate takes judicial notice of an offence with a view to initiating proceedings in respect of such offence said to have been committed by someone.

20. „Taking cognizance‟ does not involve any formal action of any kind. It occurs as soon as a Magistrate applies his mind to the suspected commission of an offence."

48. Sine qua non for taking cognizance of the offence is the application of mind by the Magistrate and his satisfaction that the allegations, if proved, would constitute an offence. It is, therefore, imperative that on a complaint or on a police report, the Magistrate is bound to consider the question as to whether the same discloses commission of an offence and is required to form such an opinion in this respect. When he does so and decides to issue process, he shall be said to have

taken cognizance. At the stage of taking cognizance, the only consideration before the court remains to consider judiciously whether the material on which the prosecution proposes to prosecute the accused brings out a prima facie case or not.

xx

55. While parting, we make it clear that since on an erroneous presumption in law, the Special Magistrate has issued the summons to the appellants, it will always be open to the Special Magistrate to undertake the exercise of going through the material on record and on that basis, if he is satisfied that there is enough incriminating material on record to proceed against the appellants as well, he may pass appropriate orders in this behalf. We also make it clear that even if at this stage, no such prima facie material is found, but during the trial, sufficient incriminating material against these appellants surfaces in the form of evidence, the Special Judge shall be at liberty to exercise his powers under Section 319 of the Code to rope in the appellants by passing appropriate orders in accordance with law at that stage."

(b) in Himachal Pradesh Cricket Association and another

v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others,2 wherein it is held

thus: (paragraph 54)

"54. We are conscious of the scope of powers of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC. The inherent jurisdiction is to be exercised carefully and with caution and only when exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself. Further, inherent power under this provision is not the rule but it is an exception. The exception is applied only when it is brought to the notice of the Court that grave miscarriage of justice would be

(2020) 18 SCC 465

committed if the trial is allowed to proceed where the accused would be harassed unnecessarily. If the trial is allowed to linger when prima facie it appears to the Court that the trial could likely to be ended in acquittal. It is, for this reason, principle which is laid down by catena of judgments is that the power is to be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. However, whenever it is found that the case is coming within the four corners of the aforesaid parameters, the powers possessed by the High Court under this provision are very wide. It means that the Court has to undertake the exercise with great caution. However, the High Court is not to be inhibited when the circumstances warrant exercise of such a power to do substantial justice to the parties. This provision has been eloquently discussed in Bhajan Lal case [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] which has become locus classicus. Principles (i) and (ii) of Indian Oil Corpn. [Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC (India) Ltd., (2006) 6 SCC 736 : (2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 188] , therefore, become applicable. The entire subject-matter has been revisited in a recent judgment in Vineet Kumar [Vineet Kumar v. State of U.P., (2017) 13 SCC 369 : (2017) 4 SCC (Cri) 633] and some of the discussion therein which takes note of earlier judgments is reproduced below : (Vineet Kumar case [Vineet Kumar v. State of U.P., (2017) 13 SCC 369 : (2017) 4 SCC (Cri) 633] , SCC pp. 379-80, paras 26-27) "26. A three-Judge Bench in State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa [State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa, (2002) 3 SCC 89 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 539] had the occasion to consider the ambit of Section 482 CrPC. By analysing the scope of Section 482 CrPC, this Court laid down that authority of the Court exists for advancement of justice and if

any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice the Court has power to prevent abuse. It further held that Court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. The following was laid down in para 6 : (SCC p. 94) „6. ... All courts, whether civil or criminal possess, in the absence of any express provision, as inherent in their constitution, all such powers as are necessary to do the right and to undo a wrong in course of administration of justice on the principle quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur et id sine quo res ipsae esse non potest (when the law gives a person anything it gives him that without which it cannot exist). While exercising powers under the section, the Court does not function as a court of appeal or revision. Inherent jurisdiction under the section though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself. It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone courts exist. Authority of the Court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the Court has power to prevent abuse. It would be an abuse of process of the court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers Court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these

proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the Court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto.‟

27. Further in para 8 the following was stated : (Devendrappa case [State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa, (2002) 3 SCC 89 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 539] , SCC p. 95) „8. ... Judicial process should not be an instrument of oppression, or, needless harassment. Court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process, lest it would be an instrument in the hands of a private complainant to unleash vendetta to harass any person needlessly. At the same time the section is not an instrument handed over to an accused to short-circuit a prosecution and bring about its sudden death. The scope of exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code and the categories of cases where the High Court may exercise its power under it relating to cognizable offences to prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice were set out in some detail by this Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] .‟ ""

5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor contended that the allegations in the charge

sheet would make out a prima facie case for the offences

alleged against the petitioners and the contentions raised

on behalf of the petitioners have to be decided during the

course of trial, and hence, there are no grounds to quash

the impugned proceedings.

6. Learned counsel for 2nd respondent/complainant

confined his arguments to the counter affidavit filed by 2 nd

respondent/complainant.

7. There cannot be any dispute that inherent powers

of this Court under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised to

prevent abuse of process of Court or to give effect to any order

under the code or to secure the ends of justice. This Court is

also conscious of the fact that the power of quashing a

criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and

with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases

and that the Court would not be justified in embarking upon

an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of

the allegations made in the report. On this aspect, it is

pertinent to refer to the judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex court in

State of Haryana Vs. Ch.Bhajanlal and ors. 3, wherein the Apex

Court held,

"In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under

AIR 1992 SC 604

Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelized and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

(1) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused;

(2) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156 (1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155 (2) of the Code; (3) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or 'complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused;

(4) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155 (2) of the Code;

(5) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;

(6) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under

which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party;

(7) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

8. Basing on a report lodged by 2nd respondent/

complainant, police registered a case in crime No.5 of 2015

of CID police station, Hyderabad and laid charge sheet after

completion of investigation, alleging as follows:

The Church of South India (CSI) came into existence

in September, 1947 and the Church of South India Trust

Association (C.S.I.T.A.) was constituted as a legal body for

holding movable and immovable properties of the CSI and

C.S.I.T.A. was registered under Section 26 of the Indian

Companies Act, 1913 as a religious and charitable

company, which has no business character and non-profit

motto. The administration of C.S.I.T.A. is in accordance

with its manual containing rules and regulations and the

properties of the churches in the States of Tamilnadu,

Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Karnataka and Kerala were

transferred to C.S.I.T.A. The jurisdiction of C.S.I.T.A.

covers 20 Dioceses and the properties of Dioceses will be

maintained by the local Bishops who are the heads of the

administrative unit of Dioceses. The Diocesan Executive

shall nominate four (4) names including the name of the

Bishop, Secretary, Treasurers and one other to be

appointed as Attorney by the C.S.I.T.A. The C.S.I.T.A.

issues Power of Attorney in favour of four (4) persons in

Diocese in whom who can jointly act on behalf of the

C.S.I.T.A. The power so granted is valid for two (2) years.

In respect of transactions where immovable property is

involved, it shall be obligatory on the part of the Bishop or

one of the other Attorneys nominated by him specifically for

each registration to be one of the Signatories.

Accordingly for Kadapa Diocese, C.S.I.T.A. issued

Power of Attorney in favour of

1. Rt.Rev.K.B.Yesu Vara Prasad, Bishop, Rayalaseema Diocese, Kadapa

2. Rev. M. Manohar, Secreatary, Rayalaseema Diocesan Office, Kadapa

3. MR. Y.M. Johnson, Treasurer, Rayalaseema Diocese, Kadapa

4. Mr. Y.S. Prakash Reddy, Member, Administrative Committee, Rayalaseema Diocesan Office, Kadapa.

Either the Bishop or one of the three (3) persons

nominated by him on his behalf and one out of the

remaining two (2) will be signatories for the transactions

involving immovable properties.

On 09.02.2005, in a meeting held by the C.S.I.T.A.

Committee of Management, it was approved for sale of

Ac.7.75 cents of land situated in Anantapuram Town in

new survey Nos. 2012, 2143 and 2673, for a consideration

of Rs.1.25 Crores in favour of A5. In fact, as per the letter

of Joint Sub-Registrar, Anantapuram, its cost was

Rs.3,18,83,500/-. But, the Resolution passed by the

C.S.I.T.A. had lapsed on 31.3.2006 and the purchaser did

not turn up. Then Mr. G.J.Simon, Good Team Building

Associates, Anantapuram expressed his willingness to

purchase the said land in as is where is condition for a

price of Rs.100.00 Lakhs and paid an amount of Rs.10.00

lakhs towards advance to the Diocese. C.S.I.T.A.

Committee Management resolved vide Resolution No.25A

on 10.02.2007 to approve the sale of Ac.1.00 of vacant land

including old bungalow out of the total Ac.7.75 cents of

land to the said G.J.Simon on certain terms.

On 19.3.2007, A6 addressed a letter to A4 by

enclosing C.S.I.T.A. Management Resolution No.25A, dated

10.2.2007 as if the C.S.I.T.A. Committee approved the sale

of Ac.7.75 cents of vacant land including the old bungalow

to G.J. Simon and his nominee at the rate of Rs.100.00

lakhs subject to some terms. But, on 14.8.2007, said

G.J.Simon addressed a letter to A7 expressing his inability

in purchasing of Ac.7.75 cents of land due to his financial

difficulties and wished to take up venture with BNR

Constructions, Anantapur. Then A7 addressed a letter on

the same day to Dr. B.P.Sughandar, Moderator, C.S.I.

Synod, Chennai informing G.J.Simon‟s inability in

proceeding with the project on his own, but his wish to

proceed in a joint venture with BNR Constructions, for

which A1 is his working partner and requested Dr.

B.P.Sughandar to accept the proposal. On the very same

day on 14.8.2007, A7 addressed a letter to A4 stating that

he authorized A1 to deal with the purchase of the said

land. Then, on 04.9.2007, A7 addressed a letter to A6 that

the extent of land was erroneously indicated as Ac.1.00

cent of land instead of Ac.7.75 cents and hence to rectify

the same. It was with an intention to escape from the

offence when A6 has already sent a forged Resolution

No.25A, dated 10.2.2007 to the A4 on 19.3.2007 itself.

In the course of investigation, all the documents

produced by A4, the letters as well as the fake resolutions,

were seized and the documents containing admitted as well

as disputed signatures were forwarded to F.S.L., Hyderabad

and reports were received. It is further stated that as per

the investigation, the C.S.I.T.A., Chennai resolved to sell

only Ac.1.00 cent of land including old bungalow therein

out of total Ac.7.75 cents of land for Rs.100.00 Lakhs to

G.J.Simon vide Resolution No.25A, dated 10.2.2007. But,

on his inability to purchase and when intimated the same

to A5 who is close relative of YSR CP leaders, and A2, being

an Ex.M.L.A. belongs to YSR CP, A5 suggested to A1 to A3,

partners of BNR Constructions, to purchase the land and

that A4 made G.J.Simon to address letter to A7 about his

inability to take up project and wished to go for joint

venture with BNR Constructions and then the A1 to A3

conspired with A4, A5 and A7 to grab entire land of Ac.7.75

cents and informed the same to A6 who in turn created a

fake/forged Resolution No.25A, dated 10.2.2007 and then

sale deed was created in favour of BNR Constructions,

represented by A1 and got it registered and the sale

transaction was suppressed from C.S.I.T.A. with an

intention to cheat it. Thus the charge sheet against all the

accused for the offences alleged to have committed by

them.

9. Admittedly, the said transactions are alleged to

have taken place in the year 2007 and the police report was

lodged in the year 2015 i.e. after abnormal delay of 8 years.

It is an admitted fact that 2nd respondent/complainant

himself claims that he is no way connected to the

transactions that took place during the relevant point of

time. 2nd respondent/complainant filed a counter affidavit

stating that he has no knowledge about the suits and he

has no knowledge about the petitioners purchasing the

property mentioned in the complaint in the year 2007. He

categorically mentions that basing on the news published

in newspapers, he gave the complaint before CBCID. He

also submits in his counter affidavit that after verification

of all the documents, he realized that he made a mistake in

lodging the complaint, and that due to wrong notions,

without having proper knowledge of the facts, he lodged the

complaint before CID.

10. Learned senior counsel appearing for the

petitioners argued at length stating that the entire

complaint is based on the transactions that took place

between CSITA and the petitioners, who alleged to have

purchased the property at Anantapur town. There is no

complaint whatsoever from the CSITA that they have not

sold the property in favour of the petitioners. There is no

complaint amongst the members of the administration of

CSITA.

11. A perusal of the charge sheet would go to show

that they were maintaining the records in accordance with

the Manual of CSITA. They have properties of churches in

the States of Tamilnadu, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana,

Karnataka and Kerala, which are under the domain of

CISTA. In the year 2005, CSITA Committee of

Management, in a meeting held on 09.02.2005, gave

approval for sale of Ac.7.75 cents of land situated in survey

Nos. 2012, 2143 and 2673 of Anantapur town for Rs.1.25

crores. It is not the case of the administration of the CSITA

that the sale had taken place fraudulently or there is any

conspiracy in disposing of the said property.

12. It is quite surprising as to how police, basing on

a complaint given by a person, who is no way connected to

the said transaction, had gone to the extent of conducting

investigation and came to the conclusion that the

document under which petitioners herein purchased, is

false, and further, police observed that by virtue of the said

transaction, it caused damage to CSITA in entering into the

contract. Police further averred that the said fabricated

document which was brought into existence, has been

shown as genuine. On a perusal of the entire charge sheet,

this Court comes to the conclusion that there is absolutely

no document to show that the document under which the

petitioners purchased the land is forged document. In

case, if any document is brought into existence by the

administration of CSITA, they are the ones who have to

come forward and lodge a report. Till today, there is

absolutely no averment to the effect that any member of

CSITA had come forward to say that the transaction which

had taken place in the year 2007 is by virtue of a forged

document.

13. In respect of the allegations in the complaint of

St.Joseph School are concerned, it is further alleged that

the school was got inducted into the possession by the

forged and fabricated documents and on the complaint

given by the petitioner‟s firm it is established by the

competent authorities that the documents produced by the

school authorities are fabricated documents and the

Correspondent of the school admitted the same before the

Education Department authorities, and on such admission,

recognition of the school was cancelled. The school

authorities have also filed O.S. No.311 of 2013 on the file of

the Junior Civil Judge, Anantapur seeking injunction

claiming as a tenant, and I.A. filed therein was dismissed

and C.M.A. No.457 of 2015 preferred against the said order

is pending.

14. A perusal of the averments in the charge sheet

goes to show that the dispute is purely civil in nature.

Viewed from any angle, the offences alleged would not be

made out as against the petitioners. In view of the

foregoing observations, this Court feels that continuation of

the impugned proceedings against the petitioners is

oppressive and the proceedings against them are liable to

be quashed.

15. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed,

quashing the proceedings in C.C. No.63 of 2018, pending

on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada

against the petitioners/A1 to A5 and A7.

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this

Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.

___________________________________ JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

12.08.2022.

DRK