HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.V. SEETHAPATHY CRIMINAL PETITION No:2281 OF 2009 ORDER: This petition is filed under section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to quash further proceedings in C.C.No.271 of 2008 on the file of the IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Bheemunipatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 2. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused and the 2nd respondent-complainant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the 1st respondent-State. Perused the record. 3. Based on the complaint given by the 2nd respondent, the police have filed a charge sheet against the petitioner-accused for the offences punishable under sections 447, 427 and 506 IPC and the same was taken cognizance by the learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Bheemunipatnam in C.C.No.271 of 2008. The case of the prosecution is that the 2nd respondent-complainant herein is the owner of Plot No.162 in Sri Balaji Narayanamma Co-operative Society Limited, Visakhapatnam and the petitioner-accused is the owner of the adjacent plot No.163. It is alleged that the petitioner-accused trespassed into Plot No.162 illegally and laid fencing by encroaching an extent of 140 sq. yards. It is further alleged that on 2.5.2007 at 5 p.m., when the 2nd respondent-complainant went to their plot and asked the petitioner-accused about his illegal encroachment, he threatened the complainant and L.W.2 with dire consequences. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the dispute is essentially civil in nature and the petitioner has already filed a suit against the complainant for injunction. 5. The learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent-complainant would submit that the petitioner-accused filed a suit against the complainant and the order of injunction was served on 9.5.2007 subsequent to giving of complaint on 7.5.2007. 6. The question as to whether or not the complaint was given as a sequel to the civil suit filed by the petitioner-accused or whether the said allegations are true or otherwise, is a matter to be considered by the trial Court after necessary evidence is adduced during the course of trial. The allegations made in the charge sheet show that the ingredients of the alleged offences under Sections 427, 447 and 506 IPC are prima facie attracted. Simply because a civil dispute is pending between the parties, no presumption can be drawn that the criminal complaint is false or abuse of process of law as sought to be contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner-accused. It is well settled that civil dispute can have a criminal trappings also and the aggrieved person is entitled to avail all the remedies available under law. When the specific allegations have been made against the petitioner-accused prima facie attracting the ingredients of the alleged offences, the further proceedings in C.C.No.271 of 2008 cannot be ordered to be quashed by invoking inherent powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. It is well established principle of law that the inherent powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. have to be exercised with care and caution and they cannot be invoked to scuttle the prosecution launched on the basis of a complaint especially when specific allegations are made attracting ingredients of the alleged offences. It is considered therefore not a fit case to quash the further proceedings in C.C.No.271 of 2008 on the file of the learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Bheemunipatnam, Visakhpatnam District. 7. In the result, Criminal Petition is dismissed. Interim Stay granted on 9.4.2009 is vacated. ________________________ Justice G.V. Seethapathy Date: 18th November, 2010 Nn. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.V. SEETHAPATHY CRIMINAL PETITION No:2281 OF 2009 18.11.2010