M.S.R.V.S.Sastry & Anr. v. The State of A.P & Anr.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 34, 420, 427, 447, 468
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 313
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, presence of the 2nd petitioner/A3 shall be dispensed with by the lower Court, during trial of the case, except on the date of preliminary examination, examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and delivery of judgment. _____________________________…
Judgment
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4949 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioners 1 and 2/A2 and A3 are accused of offences punishable under Sections 468, 420, 447 and 427/34 IPC in CC.No.33 of 2007 on the file of III Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Tirupati. It is alleged that A1 to A4 hatched a plan to occupy road land to deprive right of Bramhamgari Colony residents and to occupy the land of the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant and that A1, with the assistance of A2, executed registered sale deed dated 31.08.2005 in favour of A3 and A4 for an extent of 41.5 ankanams in S.No.471 of Tirupati Village, knowing that no land is remaining for him at that place and that portion of the said land is road land and portion of the said land is the land already sold to the 2nd respondent. It is further alleged that on 26.09.2005, A2 along with his followers, criminally trespassed into the 2nd respondent’s land, damaged compound wall, entrance gate, some portion of shed and electrical service connection and also attempted to dig cement road.
A2 is stated to be son-in-law of A1. A1 is stated to be no more by now. It is contended that A1 filed O.S.No.1422 of 2003 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati in respect of land in S.No.471 and that the subject matter is only a Civil dispute between the parties. Though a Civil dispute initially, it had transpired into a criminal case by the alleged collusive and high handed activity. Neither A2 nor A3 is a party to O.S.No.1422 of 2003. As per the allegations, the document registered in favour of A3 is a collusive document executed by A1, knowingly that the said land is already sold to the 2nd respondent in part and road land in part. Having regard to the allegations contained the charge sheet, they attract ingredients, in respect of which the charge sheet is filed. Truth or otherwise of the said allegations is a question of fact, which has to be decided by the trial Court after recording of evidence of both the parties.
Operative part
In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, presence of the 2nd petitioner/A3 shall be dispensed with by the lower Court, during trial of the case, except on the date of preliminary examination, examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and delivery of judgment. _____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Dated: 17.02.2011 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4949 of 2009 DATED: 17.02.2011
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 34, 420, 427, 447, 468; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 313.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 17 Feb 2011. The bench was SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.