Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Chandolu Rama Lakshmi vs Chintalapudi Narendra Kumar on 7 May, 2026
Author: K Sreenivasa Reddy
Bench: K Sreenivasa Reddy
Date on which Order/Judgment was 07.04.2026
reserved
:
Date on which Order/Judgment was 07.05.2026
pronounced
:
Date on which Order/Judgment was 07.05.2026
uploaded on the website of the High
:
Court
APHC010555862023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3327]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8570/2023
Between:
1. CHANDOLU RAMA LAKSHMI, W/O.CHANDOLU NAGESWARA
RAO, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE,
R/O.D.NO.12-101/ 1, KODADA VILLAGE AND MANDAL,
SURYAPET DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
1. CHINTALAPUDI NARENDRA KUMAR, S/O.LATE RAMA
KOTESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC.
BUSINESS, R/O.FLAT NO.B-5, GROUND FLOOR, VASAVI
PLAZA, BESIDE WATER TANK, URMILA NAGAR,
BHAVANIPURAM, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT.
2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AT
AMARAVATHI.
...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 pleased to quash the
proceedings in C.C.No.626/2023 on the file of the Additional Judicial
First Class Magistrate at Nandigama in the interest of justice.
2 SRK, J
Crl.P.No.8570 of 2023
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 appearance of the Petitioner in
C.C.No.626/2023 on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class
Magistrate at Nandigama, pending disposal of the above Crl.P. in the
interest of Justice.
IA NO: 1 OF 2024
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 interim
direction passed in lA 01/2023 in CRL.P No. 8570 of 2023, Dt.04-11-
2023 by dismissing the petition and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
1. P NAGENDRA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1. SANKA ANJANEYULU
2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
The Court made the following:
3 SRK, J
Crl.P.No.8570 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8570 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/
Accused No.1, to quash the proceedings in Calendar Case No.626 of
2023 pending on the file of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of
First Class, Nandigama, arising out of a complaint filed by the
respondent No.1/complainant under Section 190 (1) (a) and 200 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the petitioner/Accused No.1
and other accused, for the offences punishable under Sections 191,
193, 199 and 23 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘IPC‘).
2. Brief facts of the complaint filed by respondent No.1/
complainant, are that, the respondent No.1/complainant is younger
brother of 1st accused, and 2nd accused is husband of 1st accused; that
the father of respondent No.1/complainant viz., Rama Koteswara Rao
had four daughters, and respondent No.1/complainant is the only son
to him; that during the life time of father of respondent No.1/
complainant, he acquired an extent of Ac.16.95 cents of agricultural
land in Survey No.102 of Keesara village, Kanchikacherla Mandal
4 SRK, J
Crl.P.No.8570 of 2023
through Family Settlement Deed vide Document No.3134/1962, dated
16.10.1962; that the father of respondent No.1/complainant died
intestate on 22.09.1998, and the respondent No.1/complainant and his
mother got absolute rights over the said immovable property; that in
the year 2001, the respondent No.1/complainant and his mother
applied for Pattadar Passbook for the land which was in the name of
deceased father of respondent No.1/complainant and also for the land
of Ac.5.32 cents, acquired by respondent No.1/complainant.
(b) The Revenue authorities of Kanchikacherla issued notice
to the respondent No.1/complainant and to his mother to attend the
Kanchikacherla Office with all the legal heirs of the deceased Rama
Koteswara Rao, to take their affidavits; that the petitioner/A1 and her
younger sisters attended the MRO Office and filed their affidavits that
they have no right in their deceased father’s property and requested
the MRO to issue Pattadar Passbook in the name of respondent No.1/
complainant and his mother, and accordingly, the MRO of
Kanchikacherla issued joint Passbook to them and since then, they
have been in exclusive possession of lands covered under the
Pattadar Passbook.
(c) That on 26.05.2008, the mother of respondent No.1/
complainant executed a Settlement Deed in favour of petitioner/1st
5 SRK, J
Crl.P.No.8570 of 2023
accused to an extent of Ac.1.00 cents from her share in the joint
property covered under the Pattadar Passbook and the petitioner/1st
accused acknowledged the same in the Settlement Deed registered in
Sub-Registrar Office, Kanchikacherla. As there is hike in the price of
agricultural lands in the year 2008, both the accused, with guilty mind,
started attempts to grab the agricultural land covered under the joint
passbook; that to protect the land from the clutches of accused, the
respondent No.1/complainant filed Original Suit No.172 of 2008 on the
file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nandigama and as a
counterblast, the petitioner/A1 filed suit for Partition in the year 2009,
on the file of the VII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, without
having locus standi. The accused No.1 filed chief-examination affidavit
with all false averments, during cross-examination, 1st accused gave
false evidence on oath before the VII Additional District Judge,
Vijayawada stating that 1st accused does not know about the issuance
of passbook in the name of her mother and respondent No.1/
complainant in the year 2001. It was further deposed by 1st accused in
her cross-examination that she never consented for issuance of
passbook in favour of respondent No.1/complainant and his mother.
Accused No.1 also gave false evidence about the Settlement Deed
executed by her mother in her favour i.e. Ac.1.00 cents of land through
6 SRK, J
Crl.P.No.8570 of 2023
Registered Settlement Deed. Accused No.1 was alleged to have
falsely deposed that she did not go to the Sub-Registrar Office and the
document shown to her, was not executed in her favour. The accused
No.1 also gave false evidence that it is not true to say that she was
gifted Ac.1.00 cents of land under the Document No.2434/2008 of Sub-
Registrar’s Office, Kanchikacherla. Accused No.1 filed further chief-
affidavit on the file of XVI Additional District Judge, Nandigama, in
which, she admitted that the Gift Deed Document No.2434 of 2008
was executed in her favour. From this, it is clear that the petitioner/A1
deposed false evidence in the suit proceedings. Accused Nos.1 and 2
jointly made several attempts to disturb the respondent No.1/
complainant from cultivating the land covered under Pattadar
Passbook with the help of their henchmen. Hence, the complaint.
3. Learned Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Additional
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandigama vide Order dated
10.07.2023 in C.F.No.6752 of 2022, took cognizance of the complaint
against the petitioner/A1 and numbered the same as Calendar Case
No.626 of 2023, of the offences punishable under Sections 191, 199
and 23 read with 193 of IPC, and dismissed the complaint against
accused No.2.
7 SRK, J
Crl.P.No.8570 of 2023
4. At the time of admission of Criminal Petition, this Court
vide Order dated 04.11.2023 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2023, granted
interim stay of all further proceedings including appearance of the
petitioner/A1 in Calendar Case No.626 of 2023 pending on the file of
the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nandigama.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.1 would
contend that the offence under Section 191 of IPC, which defines the
act of giving false evidence, is punishable under Section 193 of IPC,
therefore, the trial Court ought not to have taken the cognizance of the
offence under Section 191 of IPC. Learned counsel would further
contend that in view of statutory bar under Section 195 of CrPC, the
trial Court ought not to have taken cognizance of the offences under
Sections 193 and 199 of IPC, and it is nothing but abuse of process of
law. According to learned counsel, the contents of the complaint does
not disclose the commission of offence under Section 23 and 199 of
IPC and under these circumstances, pending further proceedings
before the trial Court is nothing but abuse of process of Court.
6. Aggrieved of granting interim stay by this Court,
respondent No.1/complainant filed vacate stay petition along with
counter-affidavit contending that the petitioner/A1 filed suit for Partition
in Original Suit No.46 of 2013 (O.S.No.177 of 2009) on the file of the
8 SRK, J
Crl.P.No.8570 of 2023
XVI Additional District Judge, Krishna at Nandigama against
respondent No.1/complainant, her mother and other sisters and during
trial, the petitioner/A1 categorically deposed that he did not went to
Sub-Registrar Office and no Gift/Settlement Deed was executed by her
mother in respect of an extent of Ac.1.00 cents, which is against the
truth. As the petitioner/A1 intentionally gave false statement before the
Court, the respondent No.1/complainant filed the present private
complaint and the trial Court rightly taken the cognizance of the case
as against the petitioner/A1. Hence, it is prayed to vacate the interim
stay granted by this Court and dismiss the Criminal Petition.
7. Learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor representing
the State/respondent No.2 concurred with the submissions made by
respondent No.1/complainant and prayed to dismiss the Criminal
Petition.
8. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner/A1, learned
counsel for respondent No.1/complainant and learned Special
Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State representing respondent
No.1. Perused the material available on record.
9. There cannot be any dispute that inherent powers of this
Court under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised to prevent abuse of
process of Court or to give effect to any order under the code or to
9 SRK, J
Crl.P.No.8570 of 2023
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 v.
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 at their face value
and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any
offence or make out a case against the accused;
1
AIR 1992 SC 604.
10 SRK, J
Crl.P.No.8570 of 2023
(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.”
10. Any statement made under oath that the Court requires or
permits and any document that is produced in accordance with its
instructions constitute evidence. The term Evidence includes all
11 SRK, J
Crl.P.No.8570 of 2023
information and facts that contribute to proving the truth. Further, false
evidence is evidence that is not true in nature. Creating evidence out of
the blue, showing something that has never happened, or just altering
an incident that has really happened amounts to false evidence.
11. The offences that are taken cognizance by the learned
Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First
Class, Nandigama are Sections 191, 193, 199 and 23 of IPC. Section
191 of IPC defines Giving False Evidence (perjury), holding that
anyone legally bound by oath or law to tell the truth, who makes a false
statement knowing it to be false (or not believing it to be true), commits
this offence. The ingredients of the offence punishable under Section
193 of IPC are whoever intentionally gives false evidence in any of a
judicial proceeding, or fabricates false evidence for the purpose of
being used in any stage of a judicial proceeding, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to
seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. Section 199 of IPC
penalizes making false statements in a declaration that is legally
receivable as evidence. The essential ingredients of Section 191 of
IPC are, a false declaration made by a person, such declaration is
required by law to be received as evidence by a Court or public
12 SRK, J
Crl.P.No.8570 of 2023
servant, and the false statement is material to the declaration’s
purpose.
12. Section 23 of IPC defines Wrongful Gain and Wrongful
Loss, focusing on property acquired or lost via illegal means. The
essential ingredients include, gain or loss by unlawful means, property
to which the person is not legally entitled (for gain) or is deprived of
legally (for loss), and Dishonest intention (mens rea).
13. As per the contents of the complaint, the respondent No.1/
complainant got filed O.S.No.172 of 2008 on the file of the learned
Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Nandigama and as per the
contents of the complaint, the trial Court was said to have granted
Temporary Injunction in favour of respondent No.1/complainant, and
as a counterblast to the said suit proceedings, the petitioner/accused
No.1 got filed O.S.No.177 of 2009 on the file of the learned VII
Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, for Partition, against the
defendant Nos.1 to 5, who are none other than her brother, sisters and
mother, and also against defendant No.6, who is stranger to their
family. Apparently, the said suit was later transferred to the file of the
learned XVI Additional District Judge, Krishna at Nandigama and
numbered as Original Suit No.46 of 2013. Vide Judgment dated
11.06.2019, the learned XVI Additional District and Sessions Judge,
13 SRK, J
Crl.P.No.8570 of 2023
Krishna at Nandigama, granted preliminary decree in respect of
plaintiff and against the defendants therein.
14. It is the contention of learned counsel for respondent No.1/
complainant that in O.S.No.46 of 2013 on the file of the learned XVI
Additional District Judge, Krishna at Nandigama, the petitioner/A1
deposed false evidence as P.W1, that she do not know the issuance of
Passbook in the name of her mother and respondent No.1/complainant
in the year 2001. It is further contended that the petitioner/A1 as P.W1
also gave false evidence during her cross-examination that she never
consented for issuance of Passbook in favour of the respondent No.1/
complainant and his mother, and that, the Settlement Deed executed
by her mother in her favour i.e. Ac.1.00 cents of land, through
Registered Settlement Deed. It is also the contention of learned
counsel that the petitioner/A1 further falsely deposed that she did not
go to the Sub-Registrar’s Office and she denied the suggestion that
she was gifted Ac.1.00 cents of land under the Document No.2434 of
2008 of Sub-Registrar Office, Kanchikacherla, and she also denied the
signature of her husband on the document marked as Ex.B.1 in
O.S.No.45 of 2013 i.e. Accepting Deed executed between the D1 and
D5 therein.
14 SRK, J
Crl.P.No.8570 of 2023
15. This Court perused the entire deposition of P.W1 in
O.S.No.46 of 2013 on the file of the learned XVI Additional District
Judge, Krishna at Nandigama, which includes chief-examination and
cross-examination. In the chief-examination affidavit of petitioner/A1 as
P.W1, she stated that after the death of her father, she along with her
brother and sisters were in joint possession and enjoyment of subject
property and on behalf of them, the respondent No.1/complainant was
managing all the joint family properties. Her chief-examination affidavit
is further to the effect that the names of petitioner/A1, her brother and
others sisters are entered in the revenue records as they are legal
heirs of their deceased father. As the respondent No.1/complainant is
not showing the accounts properly and utilizing the income derived
from the joint family properties for his selfish ends and not giving share
to her and also to her other sisters, she questioned the respondent
No.1/complainant and as such, she filed O.S.No.46 of 2013 for
Partition of joint family properties. She, in her chief-examination
affidavit, she had not filed any affidavit before the revenue authorities
relinquishing her share over the schedule property. In the cross-
examination of P.W1, she deposed that she never consented for
issuance of pattas in favour of her brother i.e. respondent No.1/
15 SRK, J
Crl.P.No.8570 of 2023
complainant and her mother and that, she does not know about the
consent said to have been given by D2 to D4 therein.
16. A perusal of the material on record goes to show that the
respondent No.1/complainant filed I.A.No.865 of 2015 in O.S.No.46 of
2013 on the file of the learned XVI Additional District Judge, Krishna at
Nandigama under Order XVI Rule 1 to 6 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 contending that though the petitioner/A1 herein took
her share of property under Ex.B3-Registered Settlement Deed dated
26.05.2008, filed the suit for Partition and thereby, prayed the Court to
issue summons to the Sub-Registrar, Land Assurances, Stamps and
Registrations, Kanchikacherla directing him to produce the Thumb
Impression Register for the year 2008 containing the signatures
pertaining to the Settlement Deed, dated 2434 of 2008 of
Kanchikacherla Sub-Registrar Office, dated 26.05.2008. The
petitioner/A1 herein in the said interlocutory application contended that
there is no recital in Ex.B3-Registered Settlement Deed, dated
26.05.2008 that the property under the said document was given to
petitioner/A1 herein as her share and that, the recitals was to the effect
that the deed was executed out of love and affection only, but not
towards her share of the property. The learned Trial Judge in its Order
dated 16.09.2015 dismissed the aforesaid application on the ground
16 SRK, J
Crl.P.No.8570 of 2023
that when the mother of petitioner/A1 herein, who is the executant of
Ex.B.3-Registered Settlement Deed, dated 26.05.2008 came forward
and deposed that she executed the said document, there is no need to
summon the thumb impression register and summoning the Sub-
Registrar as a witness to given evidence.
17. Aggrieved of the said Order, dated 16.09.2015, the
respondent No.1/complainant herein preferred Civil Revision Petition
No.4918 of 2015 before this Court. This Court, vide Order dated
03.08.2016 at paragraph No.2 observed as under:
“However, once such is the case of the stand of the
plaintiff, the plaintiff has to either come back and depose in
the further examination or file affidavit but for she denied in
the cross-examination of her about the execution of the gift
deed, there is no need that could arise to summon the Sub-
Registrar to produce the original record to prove the
signature and thumb impression of the mother in proof of
execution… Here, in the cross-examination of their mother-
D.W3 from execution of Ex.B3, there is no dispute by the
plaintiff to require any further proof but for plaintiff denied in
her cross-examination about the gift deed in asking to file an
affidavit or come back to the witness box and state in her
further examination about the gift deed.”
Having observed as aforesaid, this Court disposed of, the CRP
No.4918 of 2015 directing the trial Court to follow the same direction to
17 SRK, J
Crl.P.No.8570 of 2023
direct the plaintiff i.e. petitioner/A1 herein, to file affidavit admitting the
gift deed explaining what she denied in her cross-examination or by
recalling the plaintiff by virtue of this order if at all she wants to admit,
else to call for the records by summoning the Sub-Registrar to prove
the same. In pursuant of the Order dated 03.08.2016, the petitioner/A1
herein filed further chief-examination affidavit under Order XVIII Rule 4
(1) of CPC, wherein at paragraph No.3 she stated as under:
“3. …I admit gift deed document number 2434/2008
of Sub-Registry, Kanchikacherla executed by my mother in
my favour. As the gift deed was not valid and not accepted
by other joint family members, and I have not acquired any
rights over the property through the said gift deed, I denied
the same. The property under the gift deed was also
mentioned in the plaint schedule property, my denial in my
Cross-examination in regard to the gift deed is not voluntary
and willful.”
18. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1/complainant
would contend that the petitioner/A1 as P.W1 having false evidence
that she was not gifted Ac.1.00 cents of land under the Document
No.2434/2008 of Sub-Registrar’s Office, Kanchikacherla, admitted in
her further chief-examination that the Gift Deed Document No.2434 of
2008 was executed in her favour.
18 SRK, J
Crl.P.No.8570 of 2023
19. A perusal of the further chief-examination affidavit filed by
the petitioner/A1 in O.S.No.46 of 2013 goes to show that as she did
not acquire any right over the schedule property through the Gift Deed,
and as it was not accepted by other joint family members, she denied
the gift deed. It is also stated in the said affidavit that the property
acquired by her through the gift deed was also mentioned in the plaint
schedule property in O.S.No.46 of 2013 on the file of the learned XVI
Additional District Judge, Krishna at Nandigama for Partition. Going by
the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any
ground to come to a conclusion that the petitioner/A1 intentionally gave
false evidence, or fabricated false evidence for wrongful gain or to
cause wrongful loss, in fact, the property acquired by the petitioner/A1
under the Gift Deed was also mentioned in the plaint schedule property
in O.S.No.46 of 2013 for Partition among all her family members and
for such, no mens rea can be attributed as against the petitioner/A1.
20. Even if the entire accusations made as against the
petitioner/A1 are accepted as true and correct, no prima facie case for
the offences alleged is not made out against her and the chance of
convicting her when the trial takes place are bleak and remote. When
such is the case, there is no point in allowing her to face the entire
19 SRK, J
Crl.P.No.8570 of 2023
ordeal of trial. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is
convinced and quashes the proceedings in respect of petitioner/A1.
21. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the
proceedings in Calendar Case No.626 of 2023 pending on the file of
the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandigama,
as against the petitioner/A1, are quashed.
As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending
in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.
JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY
th
7 May, 2026.
DNB
