Civil Procedure Code (CPC)

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More


  • After the bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh, there was no permanent capital for the new state and therefore under the leadership of the then CM, Chandra Babu Naidu, the Government decided to make the capital city in 25 villages around Krisha River.
  • It was alleged that the Ministers of the Government and public officials had prior information of this fact and they used this information to buy land around the designated area for their profits.
  • A case was filed before the Andhra HC stating that these Ministers, Government officials, and the people who bought the land that they conspired to do so and cheated the farmers from who the land was bought.


  • The High Court of Andhra Pradesh quashed the FIR and relieved all the petitioners who were charged under Sections 420, 409, 406, and 120-B of the I.P.C.
  • The Supreme Court was listening to the plea filed by the Andhra Pradesh Government against the said order of the High Court praying to dismiss the judgment and uphold the FIR against the respondents before the Supreme Court.


  • The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents should be made liable under Section 418 of IPC including the Sections already mentioned in the FIR.
  • It was also submitted that the High Court while deciding whether the offenses mentioned in the FIR were made out against the respondents, should have looked into the facts of the case and the same cannot be done by the HC.
  • The petitioner also made the argument that the Government officials should also be made liable under the Prevention of Corruption Act as they were acting in an official capacity when they conspired to the alleged scam.


  • Counsel for the respondents submitted that the judgment of the High Court was well balanced and fair judgment and rightly interfered in the matter preventing abuse of the Court’s process.
  • It was also contended that a complaint was filed after six years from the date of commission of the offence and that also by a person who was not a party to the transaction in any manner.


  • The Bench quashed the plea filed by the Andhra Pradesh Government and held that the High Court did not err and there was no illegality in the judgment of the HC.
  • The Court rejected the contention of application of Section 418 because it was not applicable in the given facts and was not bought before the High Court also.
  • The Court held that the buyers did not cheat the sellers and they were not obliged by any law or legal contractual relationship to disclose facts about the establishment of the capital city on the purchased lands.
  • The Bench also rejected the contention that public officials should be brought under PC Act on the ground that all the transactions that took place between the transacting parties were private.

What do you think of this case?

"Loved reading this piece by Vasundhara Singh?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"

Tags :

  Views  34  Report

Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query