Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
G.V.Srinivasa Rao vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 27 July, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AT AMARAVATI
*****
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6992/2025
Between:
1. G.V.SRINIVASA RAO, S/O. G.KONDAL RAO, AGED ABOUT 57
YEARS, OCC:RTD, GENERAL MANAGER OF INDIAN BANK, R/O.
D.NO.2-2-1130/26/A/C/5(E)27, PRASHANTHI NAGAR, NEW
NALLAKUNTA, HYDERABAD AND ANOTHER.
…PETITIONERS
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AT
AMARAVATI AND TWO OTHERS.
…RESPONDENTS
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 27.07.2026
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA
1. Whether Reporters of Local Yes/No
newspapers may be allowed to see
the Judgments?
2. Whether the copies of judgment Yes/No
may be marked to Law
Reports/Journals?
3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship Yes/No
wish to see the fair copy of the
Judgment?
_____________________
SUBHENDU SAMANTA, J
2
* THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA
+ CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6992/2025
% DATE: 27.07.2026
# G.V.SRINIVASA RAO, S/O. G.KONDAL RAO, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
OCC:RTD, GENERAL MANAGER OF INDIAN BANK, R/O. D.NO.2-2-
1130/26/A/C/5(E)27, PRASHANTHI NAGAR, NEW NALLAKUNTA,
HYDERABAD AND ANOTHER
… Petitioners
Vs.
$ THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY
ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
ANDHRA PRADESH, AT AMARAVATI AND
TWO OTHERS
.. Respondents
! Counsel for the petitioners : Sri D.Kodandarami Reddy
^Counsel for respondents : Public Prosecutor
Party-in-person
< Gist:
 Head Note:
? CASES REFERRED:
1. 1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 335
2. 2024 Law Suit (SC) 686
3. (2000) 1 SCC 278
4. (2005) 4 SCC 370
3Date of reserved for orders : 07.05.2026
Date of pronouncement : 27.07.2026
Date of uploading : 27.07.2026
APHC010334852025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3560]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)MONDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JULY, 2026.
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6992/2025
Between:
1. G V SRINIVASA RAO, S/O. G.KONDAL RAO, AGED ABOUT 57
YEARS, OCC RTD. GENERAL MANAGER OF INDIAN BANK. R/O.
D.NO.2-2-1130/26/A/C/5 (E) 27, PRASHANTHI NAGAR, NEW
NALLAKUNTA, HYDERABAD.
2. L.SAMBASIVA RAO, S/O. LATE L.VENKATAIAH, AGED ABOUT 78
YEARS, R/O. 101, OMSREE SAI TOWERS, NO.3-6-106/A, STREET
NO.19, NEARVIJAYA DIANOSTICS, HIMAYATNAGAR, HYDERABAD.
…PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AT
AMARAVATI.
2. THE SUPERINTENDENT, HONBLE COURT OF III JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, TIRUPATI.
3. N PAVAN KUMAR, S/O. N.SYAMA SUNDAR NAIDU, AGED ABOUT
MAJOR, R/O. D.NO. 19-14-11, RAGHAVENDRA NAGAR, TIRUPATI
CHITTOOR DISTRICT.
…RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):
4
Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS
praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of
Criminal Petition, the High Court pleased to quash the proceedings in CC No.
808 / 2024, on the file of the court of Principal Judicial Magistrate of 1st
Class, Tirupati, in so far Petitioners / Accused No.1 and 3and passIA NO: 1 OF 2025
Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the
circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the
High Court may be pleased to dispense with filing of the certified copy of the
Complaint in CC.No.808 / 2024, on the file the Hon’ble Principal Judicial
Magistrate of 1st Class, Tirupati before this Hon’ble Court and passIA NO: 2 OF 2025
Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS 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 CC No. 808 /
2024, on the file of the court of Principal Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class,
Tirupati, including appearance of the petitioners/Accused No.1 and 3 and passIA NO: 3 OF 2025
Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the
circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the
High Court may be pleased to vacate the stay order dated 11.07.2025 passed
in CRLP No. 6992 of 2025 on file of this Hon’ble High Court along with
initiating suitable proceedings under section 379 BNSS and Article 215
Constitution so also awarding exemplary costs to the petitioner herein in the
interest of justice; and passIA NO: 4 OF 2025
Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the
circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the
High Court may be pleased may be pleased to dispense with filing of certified
copy of the stay order dated 11.07.2025 passed in CRLP No. 6992 of 2025 on
file of this Hon’ble High Court in the interest of justice; and passIA NO: 1 OF 2026
Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the
circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the
High Court may be pleased to pass appropriate directions for final adjudication
5of the above CRLP No. 6992/2025 pursuant to the written submissions and
oral arguments already completed by both the contesting parties on or before
06.01.26 prior to the change of roster on 19.01.26 so also pursuant to the ad
idem in this regard between the contesting parties in the interest of justice and
passCounsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):
1. D. KODANDARAMI REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1. PARTY-IN-PERSON
2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
6The Court made the following Order:
This is an application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C (Section 528
B.N.S.S) to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.808 of 2024, on the file of the
learned Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupathi registered for the
offences under Section 193, 196, 199, 200, 211, 120B, 384, 420, 421, 422,
2. To understand the entire gamut of this matter, it is necessary to
demonstrate chronology of the facts and the litigations pending between the
parties.
i. Initially, mother of 3rd respondent filed a complaint against 1st
petitioner and his wife, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act
1988, with allegations that A1 by exploiting his position as Chief Manager
lured her family to lend Rs.50,00,000/- on 08.03.2010 and 13.06.2010 for their
real estate investment and business against promissory note to repay with
interest at 24% p.a., and also by way of mortgage of three title deds with an
undertaking not to alienate the properties untill the discharge of the
promissory note jointly executed by A1 and A2. Thereafter A1 and A2 failed to
repay the debt, after repeated demands jointly issued a cheque bearing
No.06643 dated 08.09.2011 for Rs.25,00,000/- drawn on Indian Bank,
Barkatpura, Hyderabad Branch towards partial discharge of the debt. The
same was presented for collection and on the dishonour of said cheque,
mother of 3rd respondent, P.V.Rajyalakshmi, was constrained to intitiate
proceedings under Section 138 read with 142 of N.I.Act, which was taken on
7
the file as S.T.C.No.441 of 2012 on the file of the learned II Additional Judicial
First Class Magistrate, Tirupathi Chittoor District. Later it was remembered as
S.T.C.No.83 of 2013 on the file of the learned V Additional Judicial First Class
Magistrate, Tirupathi.
ii. Thereafter, wife of 1st petitioner, namely G.Sudharani, filed a
private complaint under Sections 190 and 200 Cr.P.C before the Court of the
learned IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad on 29.06.2012
with allegations that on 28.11.2011 at about 10.00 a.m., 3rd respondent’s
family tresspassed into her house in the absence of her husband/1st petitioner
and obtained her signatures in three blank NJ Stamp papers of Rs.100/- by
way of threat and also collected three blank cheques with filled figure of
Rs.25,00,000/- in one cheque and a covering letter and obtained original land
documents. As the police failed to take action on her complaint, she preferred
a private complaint. On receipt of the said complaint, on the same day,
learned Magistrate referred the complaint to concerned police station to
register FIR and for investigation. After completion of investigation, police filed
charge sheet. The same was numbered as C.C.89 of 2013 on the file of the
learned IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, for the
offence punishable under Sections 342, 347, 420, 448, 192, 193, 506 read
with 34 IPC.
iii. Later, 1st petitioner and his wife filed a transfer petition bearing
Tr.Crl.P.No.280 of 2013 before the Composite High Court at Hyderabad
seeking transfer of the case bearing S.T.C.No.83 of 2013 on the file of the
8
learned III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tirupathi, to be tried
along with C.C.No.89 of 2013 on the file of the learned IV Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad at Nampally. The composite High Court,
Hyderabad, on hearing the transfer petition and also considering the age and
health condition of accused in C.C.No.89 of 2013 and as the trial of
S.T.C.No.83 of 2013 has already been commenced, with a view to avoid
conflicting judgment, transferred C.C.No.89 of 2013 on the file of the learned
IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad to the Court of the
learned V Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tirupathi to be tried along
with S.T.C.No.83 of 2013.
iv. Later, mother of the 3rd respondent namely P.V.Rajya Lakshmi
also preferred a civil suit based on promissory note executed by 1st petitioner
and his wife, which was numbered as O.S.No.456 of 2015 on the file of the
learned XIII Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy (L.B.Nagar).It is further
stated that wife of 1st petitioner collusively alienated properties under three
title deeds in favour of 2nd petitioner (father-in-law of 1st petitioner) and others,
so as to frustrate the 3rd respondent’s mother from recovery her debt.
v. Thereafter, 3rd respondent along with his parents approached this
Court vide Crl.P.No.4438 of 2016 under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the
proceedings in C.C.No.89 of 2013 (renumbered as C.C.No.154 of 2014) on
the file of the learned V Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tirupathi. A
coordinate Bench of this Court, after hearing the parties, has allowed the
9
quash petition by expressly holding that the allegation in private complaint of
wife of 1st petitioner are impossible and false.
vi. Thereafter, 3rd respondent filed a complaint before the Court of
the learned Principal Judicial Magistrate First Class Tirupathi under Section
340 Cr.P.C. for the offences under Sections 193, 196, 199, 200, 211, 120B,
384, 420, 421, 422, 465, 109 read with 34 IPC for lodging prosecution against
present petitioners and wife of 1st petitioner, cited as A2. On the basis of said
complaint, learned Magistrate concerned took cognizance and summoned the
accused by numbering the same as C.C.No.808. 2024 for the offences under
Sections as stated earlier. Hence, this quash petition.
3. Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners/submissions of
the petitioners:
a. It is submitted that by virtue of complaint of 3rd respondent,
learned III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupathi has taken
cognizance and transferred the case to the concerned jurisdictional Court,
which is abusing the process of law.
b. Petitioners are innocent for the alleged offences and only with a
view to harass them, basing on the complaint of 3rd respondent, 2nd
respondent has filed a perjury case without any proper inquiry and valid
reasons.
c. Private complaint was filed by A2 (wife of 1st petitioner), hence,
the present petitioners being A1 and A3 are not responsible for any offence of
10perjury whatsoever. Thus, the case against A1 and A3 are liable to be
quashed.
d. No evidence or affidavit has been shown or placed before Court
by petitioners/A1 and A3 and no full-fledged trial was commenced or
completed in the said case. Hence, perjury is not attracted herein.
e. Complaint filed for perjury is not maintainable according to
Section 177 Cr.P.C. as the Court of the learned III Additional Judicial
Magistrate of First Class, Tirupathi has no jurisdiction to be taken on file of the
perjury complaint because the jurisdiction falls at Nallakunta Police Station
limits, Hyderabad.
f. A2 (wife of 1st petitioner) filed a private complaint before the
learned IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad at Nampally.
On receiving such complaint, it was forwarded to the concerned police station
for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Police, after completion of
investigation, has submitted charge sheet and on the basis of the charge
sheet, learned Magistrate has taken cognizance in C.C.No.89 of 2013. The
cognizance of the offence was taken by the Magistrate at Namapally,
Hyderabad. Learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Tirupathi has no
jurisdiction to take on file the perjury complaint according to Section 127
Cr.P.C.
g. Even after the allegation made in the complaint are taken on their
face value and accepted in their entity did not prima facie constitute offence
against A1 and A3 to make out a case against them.
11
4. Apart from different grounds taken in the petition for quashing the
criminal proceedings, learned counsel for the petitioners at the time of
argument has only raised a solitary ground.
5. It is submitted that to establish an offence of perjury there must have
statements on oath made by accused before a competent Court and such
statement is false to the knowledge of the maker and has direct bearing on the
judicial decision. He submits that in this particular case admittedly A1 or A3
have neither sworn any affidavit nor tender any statement on oath before the
Court in proceedings relied upon by the complainant. Prima facie requirement
that is sine qua non for invoking perjury proceeding is completely absent
against present petitioners (A1 and A3). Hence, instant criminal proceedings
against petitioners are liable to be quashed.
6. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioners cited
decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as follows:
i) James Kunjwal v. State of Uttarakhand and another reported
in 2024 Law Suit (SC) 686.
ii) M.S.Ahlawat v. State of Haryana reported in (2000) 1 SCC 278
iii) Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah reported in
(2005) 4 SCC 370
iv) Chajoo Ram v. Radhey Shyam reported in (1971) 1 SCC 774
v) Pritish v State of Maharashtra reported in (2002) 1 SCC 253
vi) State of Rajasthan v. Daud Khan reported in (2016) 2 SCC 607
12
vii) R. Venkatakrishnan v. CBI reported in (2009)11 SCC 737
7. 3rd respondent, appearing in person, submits that A1 and A3 together
with A2 committed the offence to perpetrate additional judicial proceedings at
the expense of public justice on the legs of a false case. Offence committed
during course of same transaction cannot be split up to avoid bar under
Section 195 Cr.P.C. He further submits that even after one of the offences
attracts bar under Section 195 Cr.P.C, the remedy for all offences committed
during the course of same transaction lies only on through complaint under
Section 340 Cr.P.C. He further submits that 1st petitioner/A1 is husband of A2
and 2nd petitioner/A3 is father of A2. All three persons are colluded with each
other to file a false case only to harass and delay rightful N.I.Act case filed by
mother of 3rd respondent. A1 and A2 are accused in N.I.Act case, being the
joint signatory of the dishonored cheque. A3 is the receiver of the property
which was disposed of by A2 only to defraud the claim of mother of 3rd
respondent against A2. He further submits that A1 and A2 together preferred
cumulate transfer petition to erstwhile High Court for State of A.P. only to
delay the criminal proceedings under Section 138 of N.I.Act.
8. He further submits that A2 in collusion with A1 and A3 filed false
counter-blast criminal case alleging that the original title deeds of A1 and A2
were not deposited as mortgage but has taken forcibly along with cheque and
covering letter. The mortgage scheduled properties in the name of A1 and A2
were alienated in the name of A3, while the title deeds were in custody of the
concerned civil Court, more particularly, apart from A3 being arrayed as
13
witness in private complaint of A1 and purportedly gave false statement to
police under Section 161 Cr.P.C in above mentioned false criminal case.
Then, A3 alienated the same to third parties by which it became difficult to
collect debt from A1 and A2 on the legs of the foisted false case. He further
submits that there is no alternative remedy against A1 and A3 together with
A2 committed an offence to perpetrate false additional judicial proceeding at
the expenses of public justice. Eventually, A1 to A3 together succeeded in
inflicting irreparable loss to the integrity of multiple judicial proceedings before
competent Court.
9. Observation of this Court:
This criminal petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS for quashing a
criminal complaint being numbered as C.C.No.808 of 2024 on the file of the
learned Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupathi, against A1 and
A3/petitioners. On plain perusal of the complaint, it appears that complaint
was filed by the Superintendent of the Court of the learned III Additional
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupathi, under Section 340 Cr.P.C. for
offences under different Sections of IPC. In the said complaint, it has been
clarified one after another in respect of the previous proceedings between the
parties.
9.1 First proceeding is S.T.C.No.83 of 2013 filed under Section 138
read with 142 of N.I.Act, by mother of 3rd respondent namely P.V.Rajya
Lakshmi.
14
9.2 Second litigation is a private complaint filed by A2 against 3rd
respondent and his parents under Section 120B, 447, 440, 420, 342, 347,
192, 193, 506 read with 34 IPC alleging that on 28.11.2011 at about 10.00
a.m., 3rd respondent and his parents were criminally trespassed into the house
of A2 in absence of her husband (A1) and obtained her signatures in three
blank non-judicial stamp papers of Rs.100/- by way of threat and also
collected three blank cheques with filled figure of Rs.25,00,000/- in one
cheque and a covering letter and obtained original land documents.
9.3 Third case, Tr.Crl.P.No.280 of 2013 filed before the composite
High Court at Hyderabad by A1 and A2 to transfer the criminal case under
Section 138 of N.I.Act from the file of the learned V Additional Judicial
Magistrate of First Class, Tirupathi to the file of the learned IV Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad at Nampally.
9.4 Fourth litigation is a civil suit filed by mother of 3rd respondent,
P.V.Rajya Lakshmi, based on promissory note executed by A1 and A2, which
was numbered as O.S.No.456 of 2015 on the file of the learned XIII Additional
District Judge, Ranga Reddy (L.B.Nagar).
10. Facts suggest that the case filed by A2 was under challenge before this
Court in a Criminal Petition bearing Crl.P.No.4438 of 2016 and this Court vide
its order dated 30.04.2022, quashed the said private complainant of A2,
stating it to be a false case with the following observations:
“39. Taking all these documents, it clearly discloses that the defacto
complainant only with a malafide intention to frustrate the proceedings
15pending between the parties before the competent Court, filed the
present complaint and learned Magistrate has also not applied his mind
while referring the matter to the police on the same day, under Section
156(3) of Cr.P.C., without considering the fact that the complaint is
made nearly after 08 months of the offence occurred, which is contrary
to the observations made by the Apex Court in judgments cited supra.
40. Taking the material facts into consideration, the facts of the
present case squarely fit within the purview guidelines passed by the
Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal‘s case and also the law
laid down by the Apex Court. Hence, the proceedings against the
petitioners liable to be quashed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., by
invoking the inherent power of the High Court.”
11. After such order of this Court regarding quashing of the private
complaint, 3rd respondent filed a petition before the Court of III Additional
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupathi, to lodge a complaint under
Section 340 Cr.P.C., under Sections 193, 196, 199, 200, 211, 120B, 384, 420,
421, 422, 465, 109 read with 34 IPC. On the basis of the complaint of 3rd
respondent, learned Court through its Superintendent initiated the impugned
criminal complaint/C.C.No.808 of 2024 and forwarded it to the Principal
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupathi for further action. On the basis of
such complaint, the learned Magistrate has took the cognizance and issued
process against all the accused persons in C.C.No.808 of 2024 for the
offences under Sections 193, 196, 199, 200, 211, 120B, 384, 420, 421, 422,
12. To exercise power of questioning under Section 582 BNSS/Section 482
Cr.P.C., High Court should exercise its power very cautiously and particularly
16
in the rarest of rare cases. The guidelines of Hon’ble Apex Court to quash a
criminal proceeding have been time and again set out, State of Haryana and
others vs. Bhajanlal and others reported in 1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court
Cases 335; it reads as follows:
“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant
provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law,
2 1992 Supp(1) SCC 335 10 enunciated by this Court in a series of
decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under
Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code
which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following
categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be
exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible
to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised
and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list
of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or
the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and
accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any
offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and
other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a
cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers
under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a
Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or
complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do
not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case
against the accused.
17
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence,
no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order
of a Magistrare as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the
Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so
absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no
prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is
sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the
provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a
criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and
continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific
provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious
redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with
malafide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted
with an 11 ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the
accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal
grudge.”
13. To verify the guidelines as mentioned herein above in Bhajanlal’s case,
whether applicable in the present particular facts and circumstances of the
case is the sole question to be determined by this court.
14. The only point raised by learned counsel for the petitioners is that
present petitioners being A1 and A3 never makes any statement on oath
before a competent court or such statement is false to the knowledge of the
maker and has a direct bearing on the judicial decision. Admittedly the private
complainant was lodged by A2 and it is also admitted that A1 and A3 are the
18
close relatives of A2. This Court, at the time of quashing the said private
complaint, has come to an opinion that the private complaint was lodged only
to frustrate earlier criminal proceedings filed by mother of 3rd respondent
under Section 138 of N.I.Act. Admittedly under Section 138 of N.I.Act, 1st
petitioner herein was A1. The 1st petitioner and A2 have jointly signed a
cheque which was dishonored and subject matter of earlier criminal litigation.
It further appears that the petitioners 1 and 2 have made a statement under
Section 161 Cr.P.C., before police during investigation of said false case. It is
further admitted fact that the properties in question, which are the subject
matter of civil suit filed by the mother of 3rd respondent, was disposed of in the
name of A3 only for the purpose of defrauding future claim.
15. Present complaint was lodged not only for the allegation of perjury but
also several allegations for foisting false case under Section 211 I.P.C as well
as cheating and misappropriation of properties, dishonestly or fraudulently
preventing debt being available for creditors. Thus, this is not only a case of
perjury as argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
16. On plain perusal of the entire complaint, it cannot be said that if the
allegations are taken on their face value and accepted their entity did not
prima facie constitute any office or make out a case against the present
petitioners. Furthermore, instant criminal proceeding was initiated by a
competent jurisdictional Court. The reason for initiating complaint was well
discussed in paragraph 9 and 10 of the said complaint from which, it cannot
be said that complaint was lodged in a malafide intention.
19
17. Lets find out law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the cited
judgments referred by petitioner; in James Kunjwal v. State of Uttarakhand
case (referred supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down a law on false
affidavit and its effect thereof. In the case, the appellant therein intentionally
filed a false affidavit before the High Court, as such, a direction was issued to
the Registrar (Judicial) of High Court to file a complaint against him. Hence,
law laid down in James Kunjwal case is factually different and distinguished.
18. In M.S.Ahlawat v. State of Haryana case (supra), Larger Bench of
Hon’ble Supreme Court has set aside the order of conviction made by that
Court against petitioner under Section 193 IPC with a view that such order is
without jurisdiction and Hon’ble Supreme Court in exercise of power under
Section 142 Cr.P.C cannot convict accused without following procedure under
Section 195 and 340 IPC. This is also factually different and distinguished.
19. In Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah case, issue regarding
power under Section 195 (1) (b) (ii) Cr.P.C., and its application thereof was in
question as to whether a document, which is a foundation of perjury can come
under the scope of preliminary enquiry invested under Section 341 of Cr.P.C.,
when the Court was not in custodial legies of such document. Thus, the
factual matrix of this case is also not similar and distinguished.
20. In exercising inherent jurisdiction, a High Court cannot evaluate the
offences and allegations therein in the alleged complaint. It is to be borne in
mind that in determining whether a case is made out against
petitioner/accused, the said complaint has to be taken on its face value no
20
interpretation thereof is otherwise allowed. Moreover, High Court in exercising
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C/528 BNSS cannot hold a mini trial to
justify correctness or incorrectness of a complaint. Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Bhajanlal case is further guided that on plain perusal of the complaint if it
appears such discloses cognizable offence, the same has been accepted in
toto.
21. Under the above circumstances and after thorough perusal of the entire
complaint, it appears to me that this is not a fit case to exercise inherent
power of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C/Section 528 BNSS to quash
C.C.No.808 of 2024 on the file of the learned Principal Judicial Magistrate of
First Class, Tirupathi.
22. Accordingly, the instant Criminal Petition is dismissed as devoid of
merit. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
disposed of.
____________________________
JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA
Date : 27.07.2026
SPP
21
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6992 of 2025
Dated 27.07.2026
SPP
