Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Koppineedi Rambabu vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 17 April, 2023
Author: Ninala Jayasurya
Bench: Ninala Jayasurya
1
THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.1277, 2634 and 3199 of 2022
Crl. Petition No.1277 of 2022
Between:-
Koppineedi Rambabu .... Petitioner/Accused No.1
And
1) The State of Andhra Pradesh,
represented by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati.
2) Munagala Ramakrishna ..... Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr.M.R.K.Chakravarthy
Counsel for the 1st Respondent : Learned Public Prosecutor
Counsel for the 2nd Respondent : Mr.K.B.Ramanna Dora
Crl.Petition No.2634 of 2022
Between:-
Kadiam Ramesh and another .... Petitioners/Accused Nos.3 & 4
And
1) The State of Andhra Pradesh,
represented by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati.
2) Munagala Ramakrishna ..... Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr.Posani Venkateswarlu
Counsel for the 1st Respondent : Learned Public Prosecutor
Counsel for the 2nd Respondent : Mr.K.B.Ramanna Dora
2
Crl.Petition No.3199 of 2022
Between:-
Palaparthi Nageswara Rao .... Petitioner/Accused No.2
And
1) The State of Andhra Pradesh,
represented by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati.
2) Munagala Ramakrishna ..... Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr.K.S.Murthy, Senior Counsel,
Assisted by Mr.Ponnada Sreevyas
Counsel for the 1st Respondent : Learned Public Prosecutor
Counsel for the 2nd Respondent : Mr.K.B.Ramanna Dora
ORDER:
Seeking quashing of the order of the learned I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Narasapuram, West Godavari District dated 10.02.2022 passed in S.R.No.2717 of 2021 and the consequential Crime No.119 of 2022 on the file of Mogalthur Police Station, the above Criminal Petitions are filed and disposed of by this Common Order.
2. The petitioner in Criminal petition No.1277 of 2022 is accused No.1 and petitioner in Criminal Petition No.3199 of 2022 is the accused No.2. The petitioners in Criminal Petition No.2634 of 2022 are accused Nos.3 and 4 in the said crime. The 2nd respondent herein lodged a private complaint vide S.R.No.2717 of 2021 under Sections 156(3), 190 and 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure(for short „Cr.P.C.‟) before the learned 3 Magistrate to enquire into and punish the accused under Sections 463, 464, 467, 468, 474 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short „I.P.C.‟).
3. As per the allegations of the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant, he is a permanent resident of Pulaparthivari Thota, Mogalthur Mandal, West Godavari District and the petitioners/accused are his close friends. It is the case of the de facto complainant that he is the owner of wet land admeasuring Ac.1.30 cents in R.S.No.915-4A of Ramannapalem Panchayat of Mogalthur Revenue Village and the accused No.1 purchased Ac.0.55 cents out of the said extent of Ac.1.30 cents under four registered Sale Deeds. In the complaint, it was alleged that on the date of execution of the Sale Deeds, accused No.1 also requested the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant to sell another extent of Ac.0.15 cents out of the said land, for which the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant agreed and accordingly, they entered into an Agreement of Sale dated 03.10.2020 for Rs.28,50,000/- and the accused No.1 issued two Cheque Nos.152157 and 152158 for Rs.5,00,000/- each towards advance purchase price, both drawn on SBI. It was further alleged that on 04.02.2021, the accused No.1 sent a legal notice to the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant stating that the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant executed an Agreement of Sale dated 08.06.2020 in favour of the accused No.1 selling Ac.0.75 cents land in R.S.No.915-4A (bearing New R.S.No.915-4/A1 & A2) and demanded for Specific Performance of the same. In the complaint, it was stated that the 2nd respondent got issued a Reply Notice dated 4 16.02.2021 denying the execution of the Agreement of Sale and that the accused No.1 filed O.S.No.3 of 2021 on the file of the Court of X Additional District Judge at Narasapuram for Specific Performance and when the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant received summons and perused the Agreement of Sale dated 08.06.2020, he came to know that the accused No.1 in collusion brought into existence the Agreement of Sale by forging the signatures. In the complaint, it was further stated that after receipt of suit summons, the 2nd respondent/ de facto complainant placed the matter before the elders i.e., 1) Padavala Krishna, 2) Padavala Babji and 3) Ananthapalli Venkata Mutyala Lakshmi Nageswara Rao @ Babu and though the mediators called accused No.1, he did not turn up and gave evasive replies and as such all the accused Nos.1 to 4/ petitioners with a dishonest intention colluded together and forged the signatures and fabricated the Agreement of Sale dated 08.06.2020 for Rs.90,75,000/-, as if it was executed by the 2nd respondent/ de facto complainant and pressed the same into service knowing well that it is a fabricated and forged document to portrait that the accused No.1 purchased the subject land covered by the Agreement of Sale.
4. The learned Magistrate after considering the said complaint, referred the matter to the Station House Officer, Mogalthuru under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., for registering the First Information Report and investigation, pursuant to which Crime No.119 of 2022 was registered for the offences under Sections 463, 464, 467, 468 and 474 r/w 34 of I.P.C. 5
5. Mr.Posani Venkateswarlu, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused Nos.3 and 4 in Criminal Petition No.2634 of 2022 made detailed submissions inter alia contending that the Order of the learned Magistrate and subsequent registration of Crime against the petitioners is not sustainable, inasmuch as the allegations made against the petitioners does not constitute any offence, much less a cognizable offence requiring the police to investigate. He submits that the learned Magistrate did not assign any reasons for referring the complaint to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., and that the learned Magistrate without application of judicial mind to the allegations made in the private complaint, referred the same to the police in a mechanical manner. He submits that the application of mind should be reflected in the Order of the learned Magistrate where jurisdiction is exercised on a complaint filed in terms of Section 156(3) or Section 200 of Cr.P.C. He submits that the matter is squarely covered by the decision in Supreet Singh v. The State of Telangana [Criminal Petition No.9056 of 2018, dated 26.09.2018]
6. Making further submissions, the learned Senior Counsel would contend that the Order of the learned Magistrate is also not sustainable, as the same is not in tune with the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P. 1 He submits that a private complaint, which is sought to be referred to police for investigation under 1 (2015) 6 SCC 287 6 Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., shall be supported by an affidavit and in the present case, the affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant is not in consonance with the Rules and Formats prescribed under Civil Rules of Practice. He submits that the affidavit is lacking in material particulars and events, that mere filing of such affidavits would not suffice to meet the test laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivatsava's case referred to supra. In support of his contentions, the learned Senior Counsel also relies on the decision of a learned Judge of this Court dated 30.08.2019 passed in M.Hanumantha Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh etc., [Criminal Petition Nos.4560 of 2019 and 4642 of 2019].
7. Drawing the attention of this Court to the various dates and events set out in the petition, the learned Senior Counsel further contends that the complaint of the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant is civil in nature and that the 2nd respondent/ de facto complainant filed a false complaint to coerce the petitioners/accused to get them to his terms of Settlement and to extract more money towards sale consideration covered by the Agreement of Sale in question. He submits that the 2nd respondent/ de facto complainant lodged the complaint against the petitioners/accused 3 & 4 after the accused No.1 filed O.S.No.3 of 2021 for Specific Performance of Agreement of Sale dated 08.06.2020.
7
8. Elaborating his arguments further, the learned Senior Counsel submits that before instituting the said suit, the 1st petitioner/accused No.1 got issued a legal notice to the 2nd respondent/ de facto complainant on 04.02.2021 to which a reply notice was got issued by the 2 nd respondent/de facto complainant on 16.02.2021 wherein, there is no whisper or allegations of forgery leveled against the petitioners. He submits that the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant filed Vakalat in the said suit on 19.03.2021 and as the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant with the support of police is coercing to enter into settlement, accused No.1 filed W.P.No.24195 of 2021, that the same was disposed of on 25.10.2021 recording that the police are not interfering in civil disputes. He submits that after lapse of nine months from the date of issuance of legal notice, the 2nd respondent/ de facto complainant lodged the private complaint on 29.11.2021. He also submits that on 01.12.2021, the 2 nd respondent filed his Written Statement dated 18.10.2021 in O.S.No.3 of 2021, wherein the allegations of forgery were leveled against the petitioners. He submits that the above chronological events would go to show that the 2nd respondent/ de facto complainant lodged a complaint only to exert pressure on the petitioners, coerce them and to get into the terms of the 2nd respondent/ de facto complainant. He submits that the impugned order of the learned Magistrate and the registration of F.I.R., as also the consequential investigation by the police will have an impact on the petitioners/accused Nos.3 and 4 and further that whether the 2 nd 8 respondent/de facto complainant executed an Agreement of Sale dated 08.06.2020 or whether it was forged are matters that can be decided only in the suit, which was instituted prior to lodging of the complaint and not by investigation by the police.
9. Relying on the judgments of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, in Babu Venkatesh and Others v. State of Karnataka and Another2 etc., the learned Senior Counsel submits that continuation of proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.3 and 4 would amount to abuse of process of Law and seeks to allow the Criminal Petition as prayed for.
10. Mr. K.S.Murthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in Criminal Petition No.3199 of 2022 advanced arguments supporting the submissions made on behalf of accused Nos.3 and 4. While contending that in view of the registration of crime, none of the witnesses will come forward to depose in the Civil Suit and the complaint was lodged with a malafide intention to strike fear in the mind of the petitioner/accused No.2, he submits that continuation of the proceedings amounts to abuse of process of Law and therefore the Criminal Petition deserves to be allowed.
11. Mr.M.R.K.Chakravarty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Criminal Petition No.1277 of 2022 drawing the attention of this Court to the material on record and Para No.10 of the Written Statement made submissions on behalf of the petitioner. The learned counsel has also 2 (2022) 5 SCC 639 9 drawn the attention of this Court to the affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant and contends that the same is bald and vague, on the basis of which, the veracity of the allegations made against the petitioner/accused No.1 cannot be made out. He submits that in any event, the learned Magistrate passed the Order under challenge in a mechanical manner, without appreciating the crucial aspect that the petitioner/accused No.1 already instituted a suit for Specific Performance of Agreement of Sale even before lodging of the complaint by the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant in the proper perspective, that the genuineness of documents, more particularly with reference to the forgery would be adjudicated by the competent Civil Court after conducting trial. The learned counsel to buttress his submissions, placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Rajeshbhai Muljibhai Patel and Others v. State of Gujarat3. While adopting the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel, he submits that continuation of the criminal prosecution against the petitioner/accused No.1 in the facts and circumstances would tantamount to abuse of process of Law and accordingly urges for allowing the Criminal Petition.
12. The learned counsel also sought to advance detailed arguments with reference to the execution of Agreement of Sale and other documents, but this Court is inclined to examine the matter mainly with reference to the legal aspects.
(2020)3 SCC 794 3 10
13. Mr.K.Ramanna Dora, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant on the other hand, strenuously opposed the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioners/accused. He submits that the affidavits filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant along with the petition filed under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., contains the details to support the case of the 2nd respondent/ de facto complainant and the contentions contra are not tenable. He submits that the Civil Rules of Practice or Criminal Procedure Code have not prescribed any format with regard to affidavits, that the affidavits as filed in support of the 2nd respondent‟s case, is in sufficient compliance with the requirements. He submits that the delay in lodging the complaint to the police cannot be viewed seriously as the 2nd respondent/ de facto complainant after collecting the documents filed in the suit realized that the same are forged. He contends that the submissions made with regard to payments are questions of fact and matter for trial. He submits that the learned Magistrate is required to see whether a prima facie case is made out or not and in the present case, the learned Magistrate having satisfied on the basis of material that there is a prima facie case, referred the matter for investigation, after assigning cogent reasons. In such circumstances, the learned counsel submits that, no interference is warranted as the police is required to conduct investigation into allegations of forgery etc., leveled against the petitioners/accused. He also 11 submits that mere pendency of a Civil Suit is not a bar to the criminal prosecution/proceedings. While seeking to dismiss the Criminal Petitions, the learned counsel places reliance on the judgments of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur & Others v. State of Gujarat and Another4 and Kamaladevi Agarwal v. State of West Bengal5.
14. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor while supporting the arguments advanced on behalf of the 2nd respondent submits that the learned Magistrate after due application of mind to the material on record including the affidavits filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent, passed the Order which is under challenge by assigning reasons. He submits that the reasons need not be elaborate and it would suffice, if the application of mind by the Magistrate is reflected in the Order. He submits that the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., are to be exercised in exceptional circumstances and there are no such circumstances, calling for interference by this Court in exercise of inherent powers and therefore, the Criminal Petitions are liable to be dismissed.
15. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the material on record.
4 (2017) 9 SCC 641 5 (2002) 1 SCC 555 12
16. Referring to the order of the learned Magistrate dated 10.02.2022, it was mainly contended that the said order is not in consonance with the expression of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivatsava's case referred supra and was passed in a mechanical manner. In the said Judgment, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court taking a serious note of the trend in lodging frivolous and false private complaints under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., and to discourage the filing of such applications in a routine and casual manner, emphasized the need for filing sworn affidavit by the applicant along with Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., application. In this regard, it would be profitable to extract the relevant para from the said judgment, which reads follows:
"30. In our considered opinion, a stage has come in this country where Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., applications are to be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the applicant who seeks the invocation of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. That apart, in an appropriate case, the learned Magistrate would be well advised to verify the truth and also can verify the veracity of the allegations. This affidavit can make the applicant more responsible. We are compelled to say so as such kind of applications are being filed in a routine manner without taking any responsibility whatsoever only to harass certain persons. That apart, it becomes more disturbing and alarming when one tries to pick up people who are passing orders under a statutory provision which can be challenged under the framework of the said Act or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But it cannot be done to take undue advantage in a criminal court as if somebody is determined to settle the scores."13
17. In the present case, it is no doubt true that along with the application made by the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., an affidavit was filed, a perusal of which would clearly go to show that the same is lacking in the relevant details/particulars. Even accepting the contention of the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant that as no format is prescribed in Cr.P.C./Criminal Rules of Practice and the affidavit as is filed is sufficient, in the absence of the relevant particulars and events, the question of examining the veracity of the allegations by the learned Magistrate would not arise.
18. In M.Hanumantha Rao's case referred to supra, a learned Judge dealing with more or less similar situation like in the present case, after referring to the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava's case, inter alia opined as follows:
.......The Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India noted that unscrupulous litigants can take steps in the Court of law and in order to prevent an unscrupulous litigant from taking advantage of the system and to encourage honest citizens to have free access to judicial system, the Hon‟le Supreme Court of India mandated the filing of an affidavit. This is the purpose of the affidavit. The affidavit in the opinion of this Court should contain a statement on oath at least briefly of all the relevant particulars and events/offences which are mentioned in the complaint that is filed. This would enable the Magistrate to verify the truth and also the veracity of the allegations made in the complaint. Mere filing of any affidavit will not suffice. Sufficient details of the alleged offence with dates and description of the events however 14 brief are necessary in the affidavit to meet the test laid down in Priyanka Srivastava's case. This affidavit would make the applicant more responsible......(emphasis supplied)
19. The above referred decisions in the considered opinion of this Court, squarely applies to the facts of the case. The affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent is bald, vague and on the basis of the same, veracity of the allegations cannot be examined. The contentions of the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent are therefore rejected.
20. Examining the Order under challenge, with reference to the other contentions raised by the learned Senior Counsel, it is noted from the material on record, which is not in dispute that the accused No.1/petitioner in Criminal Petition No.1277 of 2022 instituted a suit in O.S.No.3 of 2021 on the file of the Court of X Additional District Judge at Narasapuram for Specific Performance of Agreement of Sale dated 08.06.2020, which according to the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant is brought into existence by forging the signatures. It may also be relevant to mention here that prior to institution of the said suit, notices were exchanged between the accused No.1 and the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant and after long lapse of about nine months, the private complaint was lodged. It is also not in dispute that the complaint was lodged after the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant received the suit summons in the said suit. Be that as it may. The 2nd respondent/ de facto complainant filed his Written Statement and contesting the suit. Though 15 the learned Magistrate had taken note that the accused No.1, had filed a suit in O.S.No.3 of 2021, he failed to appreciate the said aspect in a proper perspective, more particularly with reference to the sequence of events. In the complaint under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., the 2 nd respondent/ de facto complainant himself has referred to filing of the said suit and stated that the signatures contained in the Agreement of Sale dated 08.06.2020 were forged by the accused for unlawful gain. In such circumstances, the learned Magistrate instead of referring the matter to police for registration of F.I.R., and investigation, should have allowed the 2nd respondent/ de facto complainant to contest the suit, more particularly as the question of alleged agreement of Sale/forgery would be determined by the competent Civil Court, by conducting a full-fledged Trial.
21. In Babu Venkatesh's case, on which reliance is placed on behalf of the petitioners, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court was dealing with the orders passed by the High Court of Karnataka, dismissing the Criminal Petitions filed by the accused. In the said case, agreement of Sales were entered into between the parties pursuant to which, some amounts are paid. The appellants/accused in the said case instituted different suits for Specific Performance of Agreement of Sale and the 2nd respondent therein after filing of Written Statement in the said suits, lodged a private complaint alleging that the appellants committed forgery etc., and as such they are liable for punishment for the offences under Sections 420, 464, 465, 468 16 and 120-B of I.P.C. The learned Magistrate directed investigation by the police by entertaining the said private complaint.
22. Challenging the said order, the accused filed quash petitions which were dismissed. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court, in the facts of the said case, set aside the Orders passed by the High Court inter alia holding that the Civil Suits have been filed with regard to the same transactions and though they are contested by the respondent No.2 therein by filing the Written Statement, he has chosen to file complaint under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., after a period of one and half years from the date of filing of the Written Statement with an ulterior motive of harassing the petitioner. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court also referred to the decision of Priyanka Srivatsava's case with reference to the affidavits to be filed along with the petitions under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.
23. In Rajeshbhai Muljibhai Patel's case, on which reliance is placed by Mr.M.R.K.Chakravarthy, learned counsel for accused No.1, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court was dealing with the fact situation wherein some summary suits were filed before the jurisdictional Magistrate for recovery of amounts on the basis of four receipts issued by the respondent No.2. The learned Magistrate issued summons for appearance of the respondents in the suit which were served on 01.11.2015 and only thereafter they came to know about the said four receipts. Alleging that the appellants before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court have forged and fabricated the four receipts, a complaint was filed alleging cheating and 17 forgery and based on the said complaint, an F.I.R., was registered under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 114 of I.P.C. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court after examining the matter, quashed the F.I.Rs., inter alia holding that "when the issue as to the genuineness of the receipts is pending consideration of the Civil Court, the F.I.R., ought not to have been allowed to continue as it would prejudice the interest of the parties and the stand taken by them in the Civil Suit.".
In view of the decisions referred to supra, as also the decision in Criminal Petition No.9050 of 2018 wherein a similar view was expressed, the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner merits acceptance.
24. In so far as the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Parabatbhai Aahir, on which reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, the same arise on a different fact situation, wherein the Hon‟ble Supreme Court was dealing with a case involving allegations of extortion, forgery and fabrication of documents, utilization of fabricated documents to effectuate transfers of title before the registering authorities and deprivation of the complainant of his interest in land on the basis of a fabricated power of attorney. The Hon‟ble Court while summarizing the broad principles with reference to Section 482 of Cr.P.C., upheld the view taken by the High Court that in a case involving extortion, forgery and conspiracy where all the petitioners/appellants were acting as a team, it was not in the interest of society to quash the F.I.R., on the ground that a settlement had been arrived at with the complainant. 18
25. In Kamaladevi Agarwal case, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court was dealing with an appeal filed against the order of the High Court quashing the complaint for the offences under Sections 465, 468, 471 and 120 B of I.P.C. The Hon‟ble Apex Court was not inclined to accept the view taken by the High Court to the effect that when the very foundation of the Criminal case namely forgery of document is under scrutiny by the Court in a civil proceedings instituted by the same person i.e., the complainant in the criminal case, it would not be proper to allow the criminal proceedings to continue when the validity of the document is being tested in the civil proceeding. The Hon‟ble Apex Court opined that the criminal cases have to be proceeded with in accordance with the procedure as prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure and the pendency of a civil action in a different Court even though higher in status and authority, cannot be made a basis for quashing of the proceedings.
26. Though there is some merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant with reference to the above said decision, in the light of the subsequent/latest decisions of the Co-ordinate Benches of the Hon‟ble Apex Court relied on behalf of the petitioners, this Court has no option, except to reject the same. Further, a Learned Judge of this Court by an Order dated 02.11.2022 in Crl.P.Nos.8433 & 8434 of 2022 quashed Criminal 19 proceedings in similar circumstances relying on the decisions of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court including Sardool Singh v. Nasib Kaur6.
27. Be that as it may. In the light of the decisions of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the conclusions arrived at, on the basis of the same, this Court is inclined to exercise powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., as continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners would amount to abuse of process of Law.
28. Accordingly, the Order passed by the learned Magistrate in S.R.No.2717 of 2021 as also the consequential proceedings against the petitioners/accused are quashed and the Criminal Petitions are allowed. However, the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant is at liberty to initiate criminal action in the event of the Civil Court recording a finding to the effect that the Agreement of Sale dated 08.06.2020 is forged and fabricated. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.
________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA Date: 17.04.2023 BLV 6 1987(supplementary) SCC 146 20 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.1277, 2634 and 3199 of 2022 Date: .04.2023 BLV