BHASYAM RAMAKRISHNA Vs. KADIYALA INDIRA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) by seven persons is for quashing investigation in Crime No.53 of 2008, dated 17.3.2008 of L&O Police Station of Pattabhipuram, Guntur. The prayer for quashing is justified mainly on two grounds that the civil dispute between the petitioners and the first respondent ended in a compromise in Lok Adalat, Guntur and that the allegations made in the complaint to the police by the first respondent are contrary to the compromise memo dated 21.8.2006 filed before the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that after completing investigation, the Sub-Divisional Police Officer (SDPO), Guntur, submitted case diary on 2.6.2008 to the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Guntur, referring the case as a mistake of fact and further praying the said Court to treat the case as such and order accordingly. One year thereafter it appears at the instance of the Additional Director General of Police, CID, the case now stands referred to Inspector of Police (CID), Vijayawada, for investigation and that the same is abuse of process of law.

(2.) Though notices are served on the first respondent, none appears and she remained ex parte.

(3.) The case of the petitioners which is not seriously disputed is as follows. There has been a dispute between the petitioners and the first respondent in respect of 450 square yards of land situated at Chandramoulinagar, Guntur. The first respondent filed OS No.511 of 1992 on the file of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, for partition of certain properties against defendant Nos.1 to 4 therein. She claimed right under a will, dated 9.2.1992 executed by a person who is alleged to be her husband. In addition to the contesting defendants, who are interested in the property as many as 14 members were also impleaded in the suit. The suit was dismissed on 6.9.2006. It appears that she along with her daughters also filed a memo on 21.8.2006. A finding was recorded that the plea set up by her is not true, valid and binding on the defendant.