IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.6480 OF 2007 BETWEEN: S. Krishnama Naidu S/o. S. Gurrappa Naidu and others …. Petitioners AND V. Sakunthalamma W/o. V.Venkatadri Reddy and another …. Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.6480 OF 2007 ORDER: Petitioners, who are arrayed as A1 to A3 in C.C. No.160 of 2007 pending on the file of the III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati, Chittoor District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 447, 427, 506 and 379 read with 149 IPC, moved this Court by way of present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings initiated against them. 2. It is admitted that there is a civil litigation between petitioner No.1 and the prosecution party with regard to the boundary of survey No.87 in Daminedu Village, Tiruchanur Panchayat, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Chittoor District and they also filed W.P.No.2317 of 2005 before this Court seeking directions to the Mandal Revenue Officer to conduct survey of the land and accordingly survey was conducted. Feeling aggrieved by the same they carried the matter in appeal— W.A.No.691 of 2007 and the same was also dismissed. Petitioner No.1 is an Ex-Public Prosecutor, petitioner No.2 is a Doctor and petitioner No.3 is doing M.S. in USA and the de facto complainant falsely implicated them in this case with a view to settle the civil dispute. The police, without conducting any panchanama of scene of offence, filed a charge sheet against the petitioners and, therefore, continuation of proceedings against them is nothing but abuse of process of law. 3. Admittedly, the de facto complainant lodged the complaint on 21-05-2004 at 8 A.M. and the police registered a case in Crime No.69 of 2004 against the petitioners under Sections 147, 148, 447, 427, 506 and 379 read with 149 IPC. After due investigation, police laid the charge sheet against the petitioners, which clearly discloses that on 21-05-2004 in the early hours i.e. at 3-00 AM, petitioners and other accused along with some others formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, armed with bill hooks, axes and knives, with a common object of assaulting the de facto complainant and others, trespassed into their land along with JCB Machine and damaged the compound wall, iron gates and sign boards with the help of the said JCB machine, resulting huge loss to the de facto complainant and others, as such, the accused committed the aforementioned offences. Further, it is to be noted that W.P. No.2317 of 2005 is filed by the petitioners subsequent to the alleged offences, and disposal of the same cannot be pressed into service for quashing the present proceedings. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the above C.C., the de facto complainant has already been examined and it is coming up for her cross-examination by the defence counsel and therefore, the presence of the petitioners may be dispensed with, as petitioner No.3 is residing in USA. 5. Having regard to the fact that the allegations against the petitioners in the charge sheet, prima facie, disclose the offence, it is not a fit case for quashing the proceedings. 6. The Criminal Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. However, on petitioners filing an application under Section 317 Cr.P.C., to dispense with their presence, the Magistrate shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders. ________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J July 30, 2010 KTL