Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1018 (AP)

Rajanala Yasoda v. State of AP

2024-08-08

VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

body2024
ORDER : Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, J. The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973[in short ‘Cr.P.C.’] has been filed, by the Petitioner/Accused No.2, seeking quashment of the proceedings against her in Crime No.21 of 2020 of Konakanamitla Police Station, Prakasam District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 464 & 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860[in short ‘I.P.C.’]. 2. Facts leading to filing of the present case: (i) The complainant mother namely Doddepati Parvathamma is having agriculture land situated at Nagamapalli Village in Survey No.52/1 to an extent of Ac.4.73 cents of Konakanamitla Mandal. The complainant family being land less poor, the mother of the complainant had applied for grant of assignment land in favour of her before the revenue authorities. Accordingly, in 1997 as per resolution passed by the Assignment Committee, mother of complainant has got pattadar passbook. Since then, the complainant and his mother have been in possession and enjoyment of the same without any interruption by raising dry crops as absolute owners of the property. (ii) The mother of the complainant used to receive crop loan from Syndicate Bank since ten years, recently also mother of the complainant took crop loan for the above said agriculture land. Entire family members depend upon the income of the said agriculture land. But Accused Nos.1 to 4 were making conspiracy to allot the property of complainant family to the third parties illegally by way of receiving huge amount towards corruption and changed name of Doddetipalli Parvathamma in all revenue records i.e. 1B, Adangals in online records and illegally issued pattadar passbooks in favour of third party by way of cheating, with an intention to get money from the third party. (iii) There is no relationship in between the complainant family and the third party. LWs.2 to 4 are the witnesses as the complainant mother have been in possession and enjoyment of the above said land without any interruption till today. A1 to A4 fraudulently changed the above said agriculture land records which belongs to complainant’s mother by attesting their signatures on the fake revenue records. Basing on the complaint given by the complainant, case was registered in Crime No.21 of 2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 409, 420, 464, 120B of I.P.C. and Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. 3. A1 to A4 fraudulently changed the above said agriculture land records which belongs to complainant’s mother by attesting their signatures on the fake revenue records. Basing on the complaint given by the complainant, case was registered in Crime No.21 of 2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 409, 420, 464, 120B of I.P.C. and Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. 3. Feeling aggrieved by registration of the crime against the Petitioner/Accused No.2, she preferred the present petition on the following grounds: a) Petitioner neither changed the entries in the revenue records nor amended the revenue entries with reference to the subject land. b) As per the web-land entries relating to land holding details of Sy.No.52/1, the name of Kokkera Venkataswamy with Khata No.214 was made on 21.05.2018 and even prior to the same i.e. 17.05.2018, the then Tahsildar Sri M.Jwala Narasimham has revoked the digital signature in the online revenue records. Therefore, the amendment entries in the revenue records were done on 21.05.2018 by the competent authority. c) If any person is aggrieved by the amendment made in the records by the Tahsildar, remedy is to file an appeal before the RDO within a period of 60 days, under Section 5(5) of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 and Rules made thereunder. If further aggrieved by the orders of the appellate authority, there is a statutory remedy of revision under Section 9 of the Act. The complainant without availing the said remedies, cannot maintain the present complaint on vague and misconceived allegations. d) Under Section 8(1) of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, no suit shall lie against the Government or any officer in respect of a claim to have an entry made or in relation to any entry made in any record or to have any such entry omitted or amended. e) When the amendment was said to have occurred in the year 2018 and at that relevant period, the petitioner has not even worked in Prakasam District and during February, 2019 the petitioner was transferred and posted from Guntur District to Prakasam District and joined as Tahsildar on 15.02.2019 at Konakanamitla Tahsildar’s office. f) In the instant case, the present complaint is not given by the original assignee or the patta holder. f) In the instant case, the present complaint is not given by the original assignee or the patta holder. The complaint is silent as to whether the original assignee is alive or not and the complainant do not specify his right over the land and therefore, the complaint itself is not maintainable. Arguments advanced at the Bar 4. Heard Sri A.Giridhar Rao, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Sri K.Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State/Respondent No.1 and Sri Madhavarao Nalluri, learned counsel for Respondent No.2. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner herein is a Tahsildar who was shown as A2. The offences alleged against her are under Sections 409, 420, 464, 120-B of I.P.C. Learned counsel further would submit that the contents of the complaint are very vague and it does not contain any allegations in specific against the Petitioner. The complaint would show the alleged offence took place between 21.05.2018 to 31.05.2019 at Konakanamitla Tahsildar’s Office. Learned counsel further would submit that the Petitioner, due to general elections, joined in the office of Tahsildar, Konakanamitla on 15.02.2019. She worked there till 08.07.2019. 6. To buttress his contention, learned counsel filed copy of the proceedings which are not disputed by the prosecution. Learned counsel would submit that it is alleged against the Petitioner that the Petitioner being a Tahsildar, continued the altered entries made in the revenue record with reference to Survey No.52/1, admeasuring Ac.4-73 cents of Nagampalli Village. Learned counsel finally submits that it is not that the Petitioner has made any change or amendment in the revenue record relating to the complainant, but it is a case where the Petitioner has continued illegal entry by issuing online Adangals which contain her digital signature. The altered entries were made in May 2018, whereas the Petitioner joined in the said office on 15.02.2019, worked upto July 2019 and then she was repatriated to Guntur. Learned counsel further would submit that continuing the criminal proceedings against the Petitioner is mere abuse of process of law. 7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further would submit that against the wrong entries made in the revenue records, no criminal case can be lodged against the Government officials. The party who is aggrieved has to prefer appeal before the RDO as per the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971. 8. 7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further would submit that against the wrong entries made in the revenue records, no criminal case can be lodged against the Government officials. The party who is aggrieved has to prefer appeal before the RDO as per the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971. 8. Learned counsel for Respondent No.2 would submit that sanction is required when any act is done while discharging the official duties and when the officer has done anything beyond the official duties, there is no requirement of sanction. It is stated that there is clear material against the petitioner that from the inception they have intention to cheat the complainant. 9. In reply, learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that it is alleged that fraudulently for changing the record, coming to the case of the Petitioner, she worked in the said office for a very short time, that too during the general elections time and she has not changed any entry. Even otherwise, it is stated that because she was not having any knowledge about the fraud and she continued the said entries. Point for Determination 10. Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsel representing both parties and on perusal of the material available on record, the point for determination that arises in this case is as follows: Whether the case against the Petitioner/Accused No.2 in Cr.No.21 of 2020 of Konakanamitla Police Station, is liable to be quashed by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.? Determination by the Court 11. A keen perusal of the contents of the complaint which was referred to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the offence took place at Konakanamitla Tahsildar’s Office. It is alleged that the complainant’s mother Doddetipalli Parvathamma is the owner of Ac.4.73 cents in S.No.52/1. It was assigned to his mother. It is alleged against the Petitioner that A1 to A4 allotted the said property to the third parties and changed the name in the revenue record and issued pattadar pass book in favour of third party without any proceedings, thereby, cheated the complainant’s family. It is further alleged that A1 to A4 fraudulently changed the land records. A1 to A4 played an active role by putting their signatures on fake revenue records. It is further alleged that A1 to A4 fraudulently changed the land records. A1 to A4 played an active role by putting their signatures on fake revenue records. There is no dispute about the fact that the Petitioner has neither changed the entries in the revenue records nor she amended revenue entries with regard to the subject land. 12. A cursory look at the complaint would show the date, time and place of the offence is 21.05.2018. By that time, the Petitioner was not there in the picture. She has joined in the office on 15.02.2019 which is before the general elections and she worked till 08.07.2019. Hence, only for the purpose of election, the petitioner was transferred to that office. By that time, the entries in the revenue record are changed or altered.Nothing was brought to her notice till the lodging of the complaint. The complaint has been lodged on 08.01.2020. Till that time, nobody knows about the alleged fraud. In addition to that, the Petitioner joined in the office on 15.02.2019, when she was not brought to her knowledge about the wrong entries made in the revenue records, she has issued the Adangal which contain her digital signature. To attract the offence punishable under Sections 409, 420, 464, 120-B of I.P.C, no specific allegation made against the Petitioner that she conspired with the other accused in changing the revenue record in the name of third parties. Furthermore, the Petitioner is a revenue officer discharging her duties under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971. 13. It is apt to mention that a statutory remedy of appeal is always there to the party who is aggrieved and against the appellate order revision would lie under Section 9 of the Act. It is apt to mention that online entries would reflect the name of the third party by the time the petitioner joined in the said office, she has never dealt with the said subject. By following the said entries, she has issued certificate of Adangal. It is not the case that the petitioner has altered the entries in the revenue record with reference to the property in Survey No.52/1. Such being the case, continuing the criminal proceedings against the Petitioner is mere abuse of process of law. By following the said entries, she has issued certificate of Adangal. It is not the case that the petitioner has altered the entries in the revenue record with reference to the property in Survey No.52/1. Such being the case, continuing the criminal proceedings against the Petitioner is mere abuse of process of law. The de facto complainant ought to have availed the statutory appeal under Section 5(5) of Act. The contents of the complaint do not satisfy the ingredients of the offence punishable under sections 409, 420, 464, 120-B of I.P.C. against the Petitioner. 14. In that view, the criminal petition is allowed. Criminal proceedings against the petitioner/Accused No.4 are hereby quashed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.