IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6977 OF 2010 Between : Peddi Raj Kumar ....PETITIONER A N D The State of A.P. and another …RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6977 OF 2010 ORDER: This Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1534 of 2009 on the file of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Madhapur. 2. The brief facts of the case are that: Basing on a complaint filed by the respondent No.2 on 10.08.2009, police Madhapur registered First Information Report in Crime No.482 of 2009 for the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 427 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short the I.P.C.). The allegations in the said complaint are that the petitioner being the owner of the plot No.12/2 situated in the HUDA/HMDA developed Sector-I had arranged to break the park fencing adjacent to his plot and laid a watchman shed, provided electric power and collected sand and steel in the part of the area. Police Madhapur after completion of the investigation, filed the charge sheet, in which it is stated that the accused has no intention to occupy the land and he did not cause any damage to the fencing, but he removed fencing which is erected by him around his plot for the construction of his building. The learned Magistrate, upon filing such charge sheet, has taken the cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 427 of the I.P.C. and numbered the same as C.C.No.1534 of 2009. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegations are very vague and even if the statements of the witnesses are taken into consideration, no offence is made out against the petitioner herein. The learned counsel for the petitioner further relied on the following relevant portion of charge sheet filed by the prosecution: “But the accused did not have any intention to occupy the land. He did not cause any damage to the fencing but he removed fencing which is erected by him around his plot for the construction of his building.” 5. This Court perused the entire record and also the documents filed by the petitioner and respondent No.2. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor also fairly conceded, that the charge sheet itself shows that the petitioner has no knowledge or intention to occupy the land, and he has also not caused any damage to the fencing. 7. To attract the offence under Sections 447 and 427 of the I.P.C. there should be some intention to commit the offence. As far as Section 447 of I.P.C. is concerned, it is clearly stated in the charge sheet that the petitioner has no such intention to trespass into the land. As far as, the offence under Section 427 of I.P.C. is concerned, it is the case of the prosecution, that the petitioner has not damaged anything, but he removed the fencing erected by the petitioner. 8. In view of the same, the present complaint in C.C.No.1534 of 2009 on the file of IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Madhapur, is hereby quashed. 9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. _________________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO JULY 27, 2010. YVL