HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.3222 of 2008 Date:07.04.2011 Between: Bangarrigari Ravichandra Babu ….Petitioner. And: Vupparapalli Sairam and another …..Respondents. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.3222 of 2008 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.144 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Srikalahasthi, Chittoor District. The petitioner No.1 herein has filed a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Srikalahasthi, Chittoor District against the present petitioner for the offences under Sections 167, 197, 466 and 477-A IPC alleging that he purchased the schedule mentioned properties through two sale deeds on 7.3.2007 and 18.4.2007 by the vendor, Smt Vipparapalli Subbamma of Srikalahasti and on the date of registration itself he was put in possession of the schedule properties. Two sisters by name Jalli Jhansi and Akkupalli Deepa who are daughters of Bodugu Ramanaiah of Bavaiahpalem filed a suit in O.S.No.123 of 2007 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikalahasthi against the complainant and his vendor for declaration of their title and permanent injunction for the same properties. They based claim on the true copies of 10(1) and No.3 Adangal issued by the accused on 15.4.2006 in his capacity as a public servant, as Panchayat Secretary of Basavaiahpalem village of Thottambedu Mandal. He is now working as Village Revenue Officer, Peddakannali of Thottambedu Mandal. V. Subbamma presented a petition to the District Collector on 30.4.2007 stating that she was owning a total extent of Ac.1.67 cents of land both wet and dry. In her complaint she has stated that from Fasali 1406, her name was not entered in the Adangal that the name of Bodugu Ramanaiah was incorporated, in the Enjoyers Column No.13 and that in Column No.15 the nature of enjoyment was entered in different natures such as Purchase, Enjoyer and Ancestral. Thereupon V. Subbamma complained to the revenue Authorities that the Panchayat Secretary, was making false entries in the Adangal Records with out her knowledge. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati conducted an enquiry on this and made proceedings on 20.8.2007 and then the said Subbamma made a complaint to S.R.O Srikalahasti of impersonation and forgery done by Jalli Jhansi and Akkupalli Deepa in creating two sale deeds in their name. Then he referred the matter to Urban Police, Srikalahasti who registered a case in Crime No.30 of 2007 under Sections 467, 419 IPC. During the course of investigation made by the police, it is found that Jalli Jhansi and Akkupalli Deepa forged the documents and charge sheet in C.C.No.254 of 2007. The accused was charged for preparation of copies of documents in his capacity and the accused prepared the true copies in such a manner, knowing that they are in correct and also intending to cause or knowing it to be likely that he might there by cause injury to the complainant . Therefore, the accused has tampered the revenue records by making fraudulent entries. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner only worked for three months as an in-charge Panchayat Secretary and he has only given true extracts of the revenue records available in their office and he has not manipulated the 10(1) Adangal and as on the date of issuance of the true copy of 10(1) Adangal in the name of B. Ramanaiah was mentioned therein and consequently on the complaint given by Subbamma, the said name of B. Ramanaiah was removed and her name was incorporated in the 10(1) Adangal and revenue records and as such he has not committed any offence. He further pleaded that when enquiry conducted by the R.D.O, he was found not responsible for making the entries in the revenue records and he was exonerated from the charges framed against him. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent, on the other hand, has pleaded that the petitioner has issued the 10(1) Adangal by showing the name of Enjoyer as B. Ramanaiah and nature of possession in colomun No.15, mentioned as purchaser for the S.No.30/3 and for other Survey numbers he kept the said column blank and thereby facilitated the Jalli Jhansi and Akkupalli Deepa to file a civil suit against them for declaration of title over the said property. As per the averments made in the complaint and charge sheet, the petitioner has issued the true copies of 10(1) and No.3 Adangal on 15.4.2006 in the capacity of Panchayat Secretatry, Basavaiah Palem village as he worked months as Panchayat Secretary for a period of three months. During the period he issued the said two extracts in favour of B. Ramanaiah. He further pleaded that on the complaint lodged by V. Subbamma, an enquiry was conducted by R.D.O for deleting her name as the owner of the said property in the revenue records and enjoyer the name of B. Ramanaiah as the owner of the said property. The petitioner’s counsel has produced the true copy of the report of the R.D.O addressed to the District Collector on 29.6.2009. Wherein the enquiry officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati has observed that the petitioner worked as Panchayat Secretary of Basavaiah Palem village which is for four months i.e., from 3/2006 to 4/2006. During Fasali 1406 and it revealed that when B. Ramanaiah approached for extract of 10(1) Adangal in Fasali 1413 and 1414, he had verified the Adangal for fasali 1413 and 1414 which were prepared by one Sri P. Balasankaraiah, the then Village Revenue Officer for fasali 1413 and 1414 and he stated that true extract of the Adangal was given to him for obtaining a loan from the bank. Accordingly to the extract given by him, one Sri B. Ramanaiah was the enjoyer as entered in the Adangal. He also found that as per the report of the M.R.O, Thottambedu, that up to Fasali 1405, the pattadar and enjoyer name was recorded as V. Subbamma and from fasali 1406 onward the name of enjoyer was altered as B. Ramanaiah and he found that the P. Balasankaraiah, VAO and P. Venkata Prakasan are responsible for the said alterations and recommended for dropping of the charges framed against the present petitioner. In pursuance of the said enquiry report, the District Collector, Chiottoor had addressed a letter to the Principal Secretary to Government (Revenue) on 9.7.2010 for initiating action against P. Balasankaraiah, VAO and P. Venkata Prakasan to drop the proceedings against the present petitioner and accordingly by proceedings dated 18.11.2010, the District Collector, Chittoor has dropped the proceedings against the present petitioner. Therefore, the allegations made in the charge sheet were enquired into by the District Collector and found that the alterations in the revenue records were not made by the present petitioner and the charges framed against him were dropped. For self same allegations, the present criminal case is pending against the present petitioner. Therefore, in view of the action already taken by the Collector and dropping from the charges framed against him, the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the present petitioner would amount to abuse of process of law. Hence, I hold that the petitioner is entitled for quashing of the proceedings as prayed for. In the result, the petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.144 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Srikalahasthi, Chittoor District are hereby quashed. _____________________ P.DURGA PRASADJ. Date:07.04.2011. Gk. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.3222 of 2008 Date:07.04.2011 Gk.