Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

-

Heard Smt. K. Sesha Rajyam, learned Senior Counsel representing Smt. Deepika Gadde, learned counsel for the petitioners/A.1 and A.2 and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent no.1/State.

2. The present Criminal Petition came to be filed, seeking quashing of all further proceedings in C.C.No.290 of 2012 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bapatla, Guntur District. A Charge Sheet came to be filed against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 447, 352, 323 r/w. Section 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 [for short, "I.P.C."].

3. The allegations made in the Charge Sheet show that A.1 is a resident of Bapatla Town while A.2 is resident of Vedulapalli. L.W.1 is residing at D.No.12-4-4, Anjaneya Swamy temple street, Bapatla while L.W.2 is the younger sister of L.W.1. L.Ws.3 to 6 are neighbours, while L.Ws.7 to 9 are Engineering students, who are residing in a room next to the room of L.W.1.

(i) L.W.1 is said to be an old woman, having only one son. The house of L.W.1 belongs to her husband. After the demise of her husband, she fell in debts, and as such, she took a loan of Rs.10,00,000/- from one Chamarthi Srinivasa CPK,J Rao and his wife. L.W.1 and her son are said to have executed Attorney-cum-Sale Deed in favour of Ch. Srinivasa Rao and Kalyani in respect of her house to clear the debts.

(ii) The averments in the Charge Sheet further show that Srinivasa Rao and his wife sold the said house to A.1 without the knowledge of L.W.1. Since long time, L.W.1 is residing in the same house. While things stood thus, one Sai Babu, who is the son of first wife of L.W.1's husband, filed a Partition suit in O.S.No.119 of 2010 for a share in the said house, which is said to be pending before the Sub-Court, Bapatla.

(iii) On 19.12.2011 at about 3.00 P.M., A.1 and A.2 trespassed into the house of L.W.1, pushed L.W.1 out and then locked the house. It is said that A.1 and A.2 further trespassed into the room of L.Ws.7 to 9 and tried to occupy the same. L.Ws.3 to 6 are alleged to have gone there and witnessed the incident. In spite of the above incident, a case in Crime No.287 of 2011 was registered and the Police after investigation filed a Charge Sheet, for the offences, which are subject matter under challenge in the present Criminal Petition.

11. Taking into consideration the facts in issue, and as the averments in the Charge Sheet itself show that A.1 is the owner of the said property, this Court feels that continuance of proceedings against the petitioners/A.1 and A.2 would be an abuse to process of law.

12. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.290 of 2012 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bapatla, Guntur District.

CPK,J Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.