Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
M.Venkatamuni Reddy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 16 December, 2022
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI
MAIN CASE No.Crl.P.No.9987 of 2022
PROCEEDING SEET
Sl. Office
ORDER
No DATE Note
03 16.12.2022 RRR, J
I.A.No.1 of 2022
Dispense with petition is ordered.
_________
RRR, J
Crl.P.No.9987 of 2022
The de facto-complainants claim ownership
and possession of Ac.1.66 cents of land in
Sy.No.92/2 of Daminedu Village, Tirupathi Rural
Mandal. They trace their title to a registered deed
of sale dated 22.02.1972 registered as document
No.701 of 1972 from which it is said to have been
executed by Sri. A M Abbas in favour of late Sri
Shaik Abdul Ghani. Complainants state that
subsequent to the death of Sri Shaik Abdul Ghani,
the de facto-complainant No.1 being his wife and
the de facto-complainant No.2 being his son
succeeded to the property. The complainants had
filed a complaint before the V Additional Judicial
Magistrate of First Class, Tirupathi, contending
that the persons arrayed as accused in the
complaint, had initially created documents in the
year 1983 showing sale of land of various extents
in Sy.No.92/3 and had subsequently obtained
rectification deeds from the year 2004 onwards
rectifying the schedule of property in the deeds of
sale to show that the land sold was in Sy.No.92/2
and not in Sy.No.92/3.
This complaint, upon being referred to the
police, was numbered as Crime No.664 of 2021 on
the file of Tiruchanur Police Station, Tirupathi
District.
The petitioners herein, who are arrayed as
accused Nos.13 to 15, contend that the allegations
in the complaint are untrue and in any event the
issues raised in the complaint have also been
raised in O.S.No.76 of 2021 filed before the X
Additional District Judge, Tirupathi.
Sri Venkatesh, the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioners relies upon a
judgment of this Court in M.Nagasanjeva Reddy
v/s State of Andhra Pradesh1 and the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case
of Rajeshbhai Muljibhai Patel v/s State of
Gujarat and Another2 as well as Sardool Singh
and another vs. Smt.Nasib Kaur to contend that
investigation and prosecution of persons such as
the petitioners in relation to allegations which are
already before a Civil Court is not permissible.
2022 LawSuit(AP) 1326
2020 3 SCC 794
Sri S.Srinivas Rao, the learned counsel
appearing for the de facto-complainants would
submit that the complaint had been filed one year
back and investigation is at the final stages of
completion. He would submit that interdicting the
investigation in this stage would not be
appropriate. He would further submit that the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court would be
applicable at the stage of trial and investigation
need not be interdicted on the basis of the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
In view of the observations of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Sardool Singh and another vs.
Smt.Nasib Kaur, which are binding on this Court,
it would not be appropriate for this Court to permit
further investigation at this stage.
In the circumstances, there shall be a stay of
investigation in crime No.664 of 2021 on the file of
Tiruchanur Police Station, Tirupathi District.
Pending disposal of O.S.No.76 of 2021.
Post along with W.P.No.37856 of 2022 on
20.12.2022 in 'motion list'.
_________
RRR, J
RKS
