The High Court · 2025

2. Sri Gurijala Seetaramachander Rao, S/o. Hariprasada Rao, Occ Head [\/aster, Ri./o. H.No.10-4-100, Mamillagudem, Khammam, Khammam District ...Respondent 2/Defacto Complainant Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in so far as the Petitioner/Accused No.1 is concerned in CC.No. 1338 of 2017 on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Madhira, Khammam District l.A. NO: 1OF 2017(CRLPMP. NO: 14153 OF 20171 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings in C.C.No. 33812017 including appearance of the Petitioner on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Madhira,. Khammam District, pending disposal of the main quash proceedings in the interest of justice. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri KOWTURU PAVAN KUMAR, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and None appeared for the Respondent No. 2. The Court made the following: ORDER ? -.{ I E I THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PE"IITION No.12769 of zO)tZ ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 4g2 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short .Cr.p.C.) tc quash the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.133 t of 2Ol7 on lhe hle of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Madhira, Khammam District, registered for t re offences punishable under Section s 42O,46g and 4Zl ol the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short IpC,).

2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.2/de facto complainant lodged a complaint before the Police stating that he owns 1.15 acres of land in Sy.No.7OS, Thallada village, which he inherited. from his forefathers. However, in the year 2009, the then Tahsildar pra <ash Babu, VRO Kapa Rama Rao, and others allegedly colludec to transfer

0.23 acres of land belonging to uncle of respondent No.2 to his name and then to Pendru punnamma, showing € total land extent of Ac.1.38 acres. The accused created fake rlocuments, including a sadabinama and ROR passbook, to support the transfer. Respondent No.2 discovered the irregulari y when he 2 SKS,J ctl.P.No.12769 of 2Ol7 '.r\}. applied for a loan and was issued a pahani showing only Ac.O.32 acres of land. Basing on the said complaint, the Police registered a case in Crime No.183 of 2016 of Thallada 'Police Station, Khammam District and after completion of investigation, they filed charge sheet, vide C.C.No.1338 of 2077 beforc the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Madhira, Khammam District.

3. Heard Sri Kowturu Pavan Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri Syed Ya5ar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-State. Though notice served upon respondent No.2, none appeared on his behalf.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.2 filed a private complaint on 20. 10.2016, alleging that the petitioner, while serving as Tahsildar, Tallada Mandal, wrongly issued a 13(b) certificate and pattedar passbook in favor of accused No.4, Pendru Punnamma, based on a fake sadabinama. He further submitted that the complaint is not maintainable against the petitioner, as he was merely discharging his official duties and had no personal knowledge or interest in the matter. He further submitted 3 SKS,J Crl.P. Yo.12769 of 2Oa7 that respondent No.2 failed to exhaust remedies under the ROR Act and Rules, and instead hled a police complaint without approaching the competent Civil Court itnd that the present complaint is contrary to the ROR Act and ?ules.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner conten(ted that the Tahsildar, in response to the application of resp(,ndent No.2, conducted an inquiry and rectified the rever rue entries, issuing a corrected Meeseva Pahani in favor of respondent No.2 and that despite this, the Police filed a c harge sheet against the petitioner, which is not maintainable Therefore, he prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner by allowing this criminal petition.

6. On the other hand, learned Additional Publi : Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned cotrnsel for the petitioner, stating that the allegalions leveled against the petitioner are serious in nature and require trial He further submitted that whether the petitioner issued the r:ertificate in good faith or with malicious intentions needs to br: decided by the trial Court, and this is not the stage to make that determination. Therefore, he prayed that the court dismiss the criminal petition. 4 SKS,J Ctl.P.No.l2769 of 2Ol7 7 . In light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and a perusal of the material available on record, the first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no sanction to prosecute the petitioner. The petitioner was serving as the Tahsildar at Thallada Mandal and retired in the year 2072. The allegations against him pertain to actions taken during his tenure as Tahsildar, and the corrections were made while discharging his official duties. Therefore, sanction is required to prosecqte the petitioner for taking cognizance. As seen from the record, the charge sheet was already numbered, which indicates that the trial court took cognizance of the offence without the necessary sanction. The second contention raised by the learned counsel for

8. the petitioner is that, for any irregularities in the mutation proceedings, respondent No.2 should have approached the proper authority for rectification. Instead, respondent No.2 attributed malafrdes to the petitioner and filed a report three years later, in the year 2016. Therefore, the counsel argued that the complaint lacks bona Iide intent and is liable to be quashed. a B t 5 sKs,J Crl.P.No.L2769 of 2Ol7 9 . The third contention raised by the lea -ned counsel for the petitioner is that respondent No.2 had already filed an application before the concerned authorities, and the alleged irregularity had been rectified by the subsr. luent Tahsildar. Furthermore, the respondent had filed a report with the police, but despite receiving this report, the tolice proceeded \ to file a charge sheet, which cannot be sustaitred in law and is I liable to be quashed.

10. Considering these contentions, it is clez r that there was no sanction to prosecute the petitioner, and tI e procedure laid down under Section 197 of the Cr.p.C., \r. rs not followed. Moreover, for any irregularity, respondent N,>.2 should have filed an appeal before the appropriatr: authority for rectilication o[ the revenue entries. Without exhausting this remedy, respondent No.2 hled a police comp aint against the petitioner. Additionally, since the entries hi d already been rectified, continuation of proceedings against the petitioner amounts to an abuse of the process of lau. Therefore, the proceedings against the petitioner are liable to be quashed. I 1 . Accordingly, this criminal petition is : rllowed and the proceedings against the petitioner in in C.C.llo. I33g ol 2OlZ 6 SKS,J Crl.P.No.12769 of 2Ol7 ,l' on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Madhira, Khammam District, are hereby quashed Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed To, SD/. L.VIJAYA LAXMI ASISSTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

1. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Madhira' i, it: :E i#s-: *a,f+';*u'li$i's,lg',fr ffi ,T,"*":E iul6;1 ll " " ", i i'i,i" d6.i" tni prori" pto"ttti'ioi, Hign court for the State of relangana aI q Hvderabad [OUT] Two CD CoPies SM/PSL rk HIGH COURT DATED: 1810312025 I l I l ORDER CRLP.No.12769 ot 2017 ( IJlc a) I t{E s14 14: 1 6 JUN 2U5 .-. ^ ri. T a. r' ( ( i. C,I ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION ( A--, --)- I ."- &lcl's