IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.6575 OF 2009 Between: 1. Valluru Sandya Rani 2. V. Leela Krishna 3. Lanka Appa Rao ……Petitioners – Accused Nos.1 to 3 AND The State of A.P., Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad & another .....Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.6575 OF 2009 ORDER: This Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed by the petitioners Valluru Sandya Rani, V. Leela Krishna and Lanka Appa Rao, accused Nos.1 to 3 respectively, seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C. No.567 of 2009 on the file of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, arising out of Crime No.206 of 2008 of Patamata Police Station, Vijayawada City, registered for the offences under Sections 448, 427 & 403 read with 34 IPC. 2. Heard. 3. The allegations against the petitioners are of trespassing and demolishing the property belonging to the de facto complainant Valluru Madhusudana Rao - respondent No.2 herein which he got in a partition and after demolition they filed a suit and obtained injunction over that property. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the de facto complainant was never in possession of the property in dispute and when he tried to interfere with the possession of the same, petitioners gave complaint to the police, but no action was taken. 5. But, there is no material in support of above contention of the petitioners’ counsel and even any such complaint is given also, that may not be of any great consequence. 6. There appears to be no dispute about some structure being demolished, though the learned counsel for the petitioners disputes the same. 7. All the questions raised are questions of fact i.e. whether the petitioners trespassed and demolished the property in dispute etc., and thereby the offences under Sections 448, 427 & 403 read with 34 IPC are constituted. 8. In the circumstances, it is not a case, where the proceedings can be quashed. 9. With the above directions, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ____________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J January 22, 2010. PV