Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Between vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh And Another on 16 March, 2026
Author: K. Sreenivasa Reddy
Bench: K. Sreenivasa Reddy
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
****
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6815 OF 2023
Between:
Pratti Naga Chandra Sekhar
... Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh and another
...Respondents
*****
DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED : 16.03.2026
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgment/Order? Yes/No
2. Whether the copy of Order may be
marked to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No
3. Whether His Lordship wish to see the
fair copy of the Judgment/Order? Yes/No
JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY
2
SRK, J
Crl.P.No.6815 of 2023
* HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY
+ CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6815 OF 2023
% 16.03.2026
# Between:
Pratti Naga Chandra Sekhar
... Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh and another
...Respondents
! Counsel for the Petitioner(s) : Ms. M.L.Neelima
^ Counsel for the Respondents : 1. Sri Mahadeva Kanthrigala
2. Public Prosecutor (AP)
< Gist:
> Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1. AIR 1992 SC 604.
This Court made the following:
3
SRK, J
Crl.P.No.6815 of 2023
APHC010441532023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3327]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6815/2023
Between:
1. PRATTI NAGA CHANDRA SEKHAR, S/O SATYANARAYANA
MURTHY,AGED ABOUT YEARS, R/O D.NO. 6-8-3, 3RD
FLOOR 3/3 SAI APARTMENTS, NADAMARTHI STREET T.
NAGAR, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM EAST GODAVARI
DISTRICT
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, AMARAVATHI
2. GAJULA VENKATA SUBBA RAO, S/O G RAMACHANDRA
RAO AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/O D.NO. 6-13,
GAJULAVARI STREET, POTHAVARAM VILLAGE,
NALLAJERLA MANDAL WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):
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 may be pleased to
call for the records in CC No. 5370 of 2022 on the file of V Addl.
Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram and quash the
same against the petitioner herein and pass such
IA NO: 1 OF 2023
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 grant stay of all
further proceedings including personal appearance of the petitioner
4
SRK, J
Crl.P.No.6815 of 2023
in C.C. No. 5370 of 2022 on the file of V Addl. Judicial First Class
Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram pending disposal of the above
Criminal Petition and to pass such
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
1. M L NEELIMA
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1. MAHADEVA KANTHRIGALA
2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
The Court made the following:
5
SRK, J
Crl.P.No.6815 of 2023
ORDER
This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘CrPC‘) has been filed by the
petitioner herein/Accused No.4, to quash the charge sheet in
Calendar Case No.5370 of 2022 pending on the file of the learned V
Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajamahendravaram,
arising out of a case in Crime No.21 of 2020 of II Town Law and
Order Police Station, Rajamahendravaram, registered against the
petitioner herein/A4 and other accused, for the offences punishable
under Sections 120B, 467, 471 read with 34 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘IPC‘).
2. Brief facts of the case are that, during the year 2007,
L.W2/Gajula Venkata Srinivasarao worked as Supervisor at GDR
Company; at that time, petitioner herein/A4, who is son of accused
No.1, was doing lorry business in the same company and also
outside the company. It is the allegation that respondent No.2 and
L.W2/Gajula Venkata Srinivasarao, believing the words of petitioner
herein/A4, invested Rs.4.00 lakhs each and purchased a tipper and
got registered in the name of A1; that the petitioner herein/A4 and
L.W2/Gajula Venkata Srinivasarao did business from 2007 to 2010
jointly and looked after the business bills of the tipper; that
6
SRK, J
Crl.P.No.6815 of 2023
respondent No.2 and L.W2/Gajula Venkata Srinivasarao did not
take the benefits on the tipper, with a view to take in bulk, and
accordingly, in the year 2010, when they asked the petitioner
herein/A4 for their respective shares out of the benefits arrived in
the lorry business, the petitioner herein/A4 was alleged to have told
that the bills were not passed and they are pending; that later,
respondent No.2 and L.W2/Gajula Venkata Srinivasarao learnt that
the parts of the tipper were exchanged in the absence of
L.W2/Gajula Venkata Srinivasarao; that when a meeting was held
at the house of L.W4/Prathi Ganibabu, accused No.1 and petitioner
herein/A4 were alleged to have orally agreed to pay the invested
amount of Rs.4.00 lakhs to respondent No.2 and L.W2/Gajula
Venkata Srinivasarao and settle the issue; that three months
thereafter, respondent No.2 received notice from the Court in a suit
filed by A1, alleging that he took loan of Rs.2.00 lakhs from A1 in
the month of November, 2008 on interest and that, respondent No.2
failed to repay and gave a promissory notice to A1, with his
signature.
(b) It is the case of respondent No.2 that A1 was alleged to
have forged his signature on the promissory note, which was
7
SRK, J
Crl.P.No.6815 of 2023
scribed by A2, and A3 was alleged to have signed on the said
promissory note as attestor.
(c) Respondent No.2 made a complaint before the
Jurisdictional Court and the same was forwarded to the II Town
Police Station, Rajamahendravaram for inquiry. The preliminary
inquiry of the police revealed prima facie case, and pursuant to the
complaint forwarded by the Jurisdictional Court, a case in Crime
No.21 of 2020 of II Town Law and Order Police Station,
Rajamahendravaram was registered for the offences punishable
under Sections 120B, 467 and 471 read with 34 of IPC and
investigated into. During the course of investigation, accused Nos.1
and 2 obtained anticipatory bail from the learned Special Judge for
trial of Cases under the SCs and the STs (PoA) Act, 1989-cum-X
Additional District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari at
Rajamahendravaram vide Order dated 25.02.2020 in
Crl.M.P.No.158 of 2020. The petitioner herein/A4 was served with
notice under Section 41A CrPC. Accused No.3 was absconding
since the date of commission of offence alleged. After completion of
investigation, L.W10/Md.Ashfaq, Sub-Inspector of Police, II Town
L&O Police Station, Rajamahendravaram filed Charge Sheet.
8
SRK, J
Crl.P.No.6815 of 2023
3. Ms. M.L.Neelima, learned counsel for petitioner herein/
A4 would contend that the petitioner herein/A4 was falsely
implicated in this case, even though he is no way connected to the
subject crime. Learned counsel would further contend that
respondent No.2, who is defendant in O.S.No.249 of 2011 on the
file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry, pleaded that
he has no acquaintance with A1, but, contrary to the same,
respondent No.2, in the complaint made before the Jurisdictional
Court under Section 190 (1) (a) of CrPC, alleged that, the petitioner
herein/A4 and her mother viz., A1, having agreed to pay the
invested amount of Rs.4.00 lakhs to him and L.W2/Gajula Venkata
Srinivasarao, forged the signature of respondent No.2 on the
promissory note and filed O.S.No.249 of 2011 to gain wrongfully.
Learned counsel would further contend that the case was got
registered against the petitioner herein/A4 after a lapse of 12 years.
The entire material allegations are against A1 and other accused
and except making an omnibus accusation as against the petitioner
herein/A4, no specific act has been attributed. Hence, he submits
that continuation of the impugned Proceedings against the
petitioner is nothing but abuse of process of Court.
9
SRK, J
Crl.P.No.6815 of 2023
4. Sri Mahadeva Kanthrigala, learned counsel for
respondent No.2/de facto complainant would contend that there are
specific allegations as against the petitioner herein/A4 who is
alleged to have made the de facto complainant to invest amount in
the lorry business, and in order to evade to pay the share in the
benefit arrived out of the said business, the petitioner herein/A4,
along with other accused, forged the signature of respondent No.2
and got filed the suit in O.S.No.249 of 2011 on the file of the
Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry. Learned counsel would
further contend that these are disputed questions of fact and same
have to be adjudicated during the course of trial, and in a petition
filed under Section 482 CrPC, these disputes questions of fact
cannot be gone into by this Court and it is for the trial Court to
decide the same.
5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor concurred with the
submissions made by respondent No.2 herein/de facto complainant.
6. Heard both sides. Perused the material available on
record.
7. There cannot be any dispute that inherent powers of
this Court under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised to prevent
10
SRK, J
Crl.P.No.6815 of 2023
abuse of process of Court or to give effect to any order under the
code or to secure the ends of justice. This Court is also conscious
of the fact that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should
be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in
the rarest of rare cases and that the Court would not be justified in
embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or
otherwise of the allegations made in the report. On this aspect, it is
pertinent to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex court in State
of Haryana Vs. Ch.Bhajanlal and ors.1, wherein the Hon’ble Apex
Court held as under:
“In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various
relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the
principles of law 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 channelized 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 at1
AIR 1992 SC 604
11
SRK, J
Crl.P.No.6815 of 2023their 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 F.I.R. 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;
(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 Magistrate 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 mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the
accused and with a view to spite him due to private and
personal grudge.”
12
SRK, J
Crl.P.No.6815 of 2023
8. A perusal of the contents of the charge sheet filed in
C.C.No.5370 of 2022 on the file of the learned V Additional Judicial
Magistrate of First Class, Rajamahendravaram goes to show that
respondent No.2 and L.W2/Gajula Venkata Srinivasarao, believing
the words of petitioner herein/A4, were alleged to have invested
Rs.4.00 lakhs each and purchased a tipper and the said tipper was
registered in the name of accused No.1, who is none other than the
mother of petitioner herein/A4. The dispute arose, when respondent
No.2 herein received a notice, got issued by accused No.1 alleging
that he was indebted to her a sum of Rs.2.00 lakhs under a
promissory note, alleged to have executed by him in her favour.
9. A perusal of the material on record further goes to
show that accused No.1 filed O.S.No.249 of 2011 on the file of the
learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry against
respondent No.2. According to the learned counsel for petitioner
herein/A4, the said suit was decreed on 04.09.2015 in favour of
accused No.1 and against respondent No.2 and aggrieved of the
said Decree and Judgment, respondent No.2 was said to have
preferred appeal vide Appeal Suit No.11 of 2016 on the file of the
learned Principal District Judge, East Godavari at
Rajamahendravaram and the said appeal was allowed in favour of
13
SRK, J
Crl.P.No.6815 of 2023
respondent No.2. As per the learned counsel for petitioner
herein/A4, accused No.1 preferred Second Appeal No.382 of 2018
and it is pending on the file of this Court.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner herein/A4 would
contend that respondent No.2, in his written statement filed in
O.S.No.249 of 2011 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge,
Rajahmundry, took the plea that he has no acquaintance with
accused No.1, and on the other hand, he alleged in the present
crime that believing the words of petitioner herein/A4, who is none
other than the son of accused No.1, he along with L.W2/Gajula
Venkata Srinivasarao invested Rs.4.00 lakhs each and purchased a
tipper in the name of accused No.1. According to the learned
counsel, both the pleas are quite contra with each other. It is further
contended that respondent No.2 got filed the present case
C.C.No.5370 of 2022 after a lapse of 12 years.
11. Learned counsel for respondent No.2/de facto
complainant would contend that respondent No.2 and accused No.1
jointly conducted works during the year 2007 to December, 2010,
and later, there was a settlement in between them, and as per the
settlement, accused No.1 has to pay an amount of Rs.4.00 lakhs to
him, and to avoid the same, accused No.1 got forged the signature
14
SRK, J
Crl.P.No.6815 of 2023
of respondent No.2 and filed the suit in O.S.No.249 of 2011 on the
file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajamundry.
According to the learned counsel, after succeeding in the appeal
vide A.S.No.16 of 2016 on the file of the Principal District Judge,
East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram, respondent No.2 got filed
O.S.No.4 of 2018 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge,
Rajahmundry, for damages and the same is pending.
12. This Court perused all the material on record filed by
either side. Indisputably, none of the parties filed copies of either
the Decree and Judgment dated 04.09.2015 passed in O.S.No.249
of 2011 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry or
the Decree and Judgment dated 30.06.2017 passed in Appeal Suit
No.11 of 2016 [(as per the petitioner herein/A4) (Appeal Suit No.16
of 2016 as per respondent No.2)] by the learned Principal District
Judge, East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram.
13. A perusal of the contents of the written statement in
O.S.No.249 of 2011 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil
Judge, Rajahmundry, filed by respondent No.2 goes to show that, it
is the plea of respondent No.2 that someone got filed the aforesaid
suit by forging his signature on the suit promissory note through the
plaintiff therein i.e. accused No.1 herein. It is not the case of
15
SRK, J
Crl.P.No.6815 of 2023
respondent No.2 in O.S.No.249 of 2011 on the file of the learned
Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry that the petitioner
herein/A4, who is son of accused No.1, along with other accused
forged the promissory note.
14. Though learned counsel for respondent No.2
contended that when the disputed signature on the suit promissory
note in O.S.No.249 of 2011 was sent to the Expert, CFSL,
Hyderabad, it was opined that there was no significant similarity
between the questioned and standard signatures and they pertain
to different authorship, merely basing on the said opinion, it cannot
be concluded that such difference was due to the forgery done by
the petitioner herein/ accused No.4. There is no prima facie case to
connect the petitioner herein/A4 that he conspired together with
other accused and committed the offences punishable under
Sections 120B, 467 and 471 read with 34 of IPC.
15. Except vague and bald allegations, which are not
sufficient to prosecute the petitioner herein/A4, there is no other
accusation as against the petitioner herein/A4. Pursuant to the
accusations made as against the petitioner herein/A4, the chances
of convicting him when the trial takes place are bleak and remote.
When such is the case, there is no point in allowing him to face the
16
SRK, J
Crl.P.No.6815 of 2023
entire ordeal of trial. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, this
Court is convinced and quashes the proceedings in respect of
petitioner herein/A4.
16. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the
proceedings in Calendar Case No.5370 of 2022 pending on the file
of the learned V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Rajamahendravaram, as against the petitioner herein/Accused No.4
are quashed.
As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any,
pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.
JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY
th
16 March, 2026.
DNB
Note:
LR Copy to be marked.
B/o.
DNB