HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.3035 of 2010 DATED 30.03.2010 Between: Yeluguri Umamaheswara Rao and others. … Petitioners And State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by Public Prosecutor, and another. … Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.3035 of 2010 ORDER: A-1, A-3 and A-4 in C.C. No.733 of 2009 on the file of X Metroplitan Magistrate, Malkajgiri are the petitioners who are seeking quashing of proceedings in the criminal case. The 2nd respondent/defacto-complainant and A-1 are closely related to each other. A-3 is son of A-1. A-4 is nephew of A-1. A-1’s father and 2nd respondent’s grand father are brothers. 2) It is alleged that the 2nd respondent was due to an extent of Rs.15,000/- to A-1 and that on 24.06.2009 at about 22.30 hours A-1, A-3 along with A-2, A-4 and A-5 went to the 2nd respondent’s house in car and criminally trespassed into his house and threatened him and his son with dire consequences and beat them with hands on their face, back and head and that all the accused obtained signatures on two blank promissory notes with stamps from the 2nd respondent and also obtained signatures of the 2nd respondent’s son on two blank cheques of U.T.I bank for Rs.4,00,000/- each saying that the 2nd respondent had to pay the amounts to them. 3) It is contended by the senior counsel appearing for the petitioners that it is a pure civil dispute between the parties relating to money transactions. It is stated that the police during investigation recovered the promissory notes and the cheques in question from A-2 under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Even though transaction relating to money is of civil nature, the question herein is whether the accused indulged in trespassing into house of the 2nd respondent and whether the accused beat him and his son and obtained their signatures on blank promissory notes and cheques by threats and coercion. In case the above high handed things took place, then the civil dispute between the parties becomes criminal offence also. It is contended that false case was foisted against the accused with an intention to forestall civil litigation. It is a matter to be gone into during trial about truth or falsity of the allegations against the petitioners. This Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C cannot go into the said question and decide the said questions of fact. 4) Hence, the petition is dismissed. _____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J March 30, 2010 KSH