Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
E.Venkata Swamy, Kadapa Dt 10 Othrs., vs Injeti Bhudevi, Kadapa Dt., Anr, Rep ... on 22 October, 2019
Author: U. Durga Prasad Rao
Bench: U. Durga Prasad Rao
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4389 OF 2013
ORDER:
The petitioners/A1 to A11 seek to quash the proceedings against them in Crime No.130 of 2013 of Pulivendula Urban Police Station, Kadapa District, registered for the offences under Sections 429, 329, 436, 307, 467, 452, 379, 354, 323, 506 r/w 34 IPC.
2. The complaint allegations briefly are that the defacto complainant and her husband are residing in Ahobilapuram adjacent to Kasinayana Ashramam. The husband of the complainant got agriculture land of an extent of Acres 4.47 cents during partition of the joint family properties. They are in effective possession and enjoyment of those lands. There are some civil disputes pending regarding those lands and they are the subject matters of O.S.Nos.106 and 221 of 2006 of Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa. The further case of the defacto complainant is that A1, who is the younger brother of complainant's husband, created some forged documents and gift deeds during the pendency of the above suits and got transferred his name in some of the properties, which are subject matters of O.S.No.221 of 2006 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa. Those lands are government lands and DKT patta lands. The further case of the complainant is that all the accused have cut the trees in the lands of complainant and her husband and caused mischief to their property. Further, the accused set fire to their residential house and with most 2 difficulty, the complainant and her husband could escape. Thus the complaint.
3. Heard.
4. Denying the complaint allegations, learned counsel for petitioners would argue that in I.A.No.143 of 2005 in O.S.No.86 of 2005 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Pulivendula, the 3rd petitioner/A3 and her husband obtained interim injunction against the husband and son of the defacto complainant and CMA.No.37 of 2005 filed by the respondents therein was dismissed by the I Additional District Judge, Kadapa on 21.11.2005. Thus, the question of their trespassing into the lands and committing other offences as alleged in the complaint does not arise. Learned additional public prosecutor opposed the petition.
5. I gave my anxious consideration to the above respective submissions. Whether the disputed lands were obtained by the husband of the complainant in the partition and whether the accused have trespassed into it and destroyed the trees and set fire to the house of the complainant etc., facts or whether a false complaint is filed in view of the fact that A3 and her husband obtained interim injunction against the respondent and son of the defacto complainant can be known only after thorough investigation. Basically, the case projects that the matter is a property dispute between the family members. In that view, this criminal petition is disposed of directing the investigating officer to complete the investigation expeditiously. 3 However, considering the fact the some of the accused are aged persons and ladies, the Investigating Officer shall not arrest the petitioners/accused during the course of investigation.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this case shall stand closed.
__________________________ U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J 22.10.2019 SS