IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.P.No.2679 of 2009 Between:- Namubola Venkata Ramanaiah …Petitioner A n d The State of A.P., Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.P.No.2679 of 2009 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing further proceedings against the petitioner/A-3 in C.C.No.107 of 2009, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Nandyal, Kurnool District. 2. None appeared for the petitioner. Heard the learned counsel for second respondent. Perused the record. 3. Based on a compliant given by the second respondent, the police registered a case in Cr.No.156 of 2008 against the petitioner/ A-3 and two others for the offences under Sections 448 and 506 IPC. After due investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the petitioner/A-3 and two others for the above said offences and the same was taken cognizance by the learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Nandyal in C.C.No.107 of 2009. 4. According to the complainant, A-1 is brother of his son- in-law, A-2 is the father of A-1 and A-3 is father-in-law of A-1 and that there has been some dispute regarding the disposal of the house site situate at Tadipatri between his son-in-law and A-1 and that bearing grudge that the complainant was supporting his son- in-law in the said dispute, A-1, A-2 and A-3 trespassed into the house of the complainant on 01-10-2008 at 07-00 P.M and abused the complainant in filthy language and at the behest of A-3, A-1 and A-2 came upon the complainant and caught hold of him and when the complainant and his wife protested against the same, A-1 to A-3 threatened the complainant that they would see his end and left the house. The abusive language used by the accused against the complainant is extracted in the complaint. 5. Specific allegations have been made against the petitioner/A-3 in the complaint and also in the charge sheet prima facie attracting the ingredients of the offences under Sections 448 and 506 IPC. The truth or otherwise of the said allegations can be ascertained only after necessary evidence is adduced during the course of trial, but not at this stage. 6. Having regard to the fact that specific allegations have been made in the complaint and the charge sheet against the petitioner/A-3, it is considered not a fit case to invoke the inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C and quash further proceedings in C.C.No.107 of 2009. 7. It is well settled principle of law that the inherent powers of the Court have to be exercised with care, caution and circumspection and they cannot be invoked to thwart further proceedings, especially where the complaint discloses specific allegations prima facie attracting the ingredients of the offences alleged. 8. In the present case also, in view of the specific allegations made against the petitioner/A-3 prima facie attracting the ingredients of the offence alleged, it is considered not a fit case to quash further proceedings in C.C.No.107 of 2009. 9. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. Interim stay granted earlier stands vacated. _____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 09th December, 2010 Lrkm.