THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2294 OF 2009 DATED:20-09- 2010. Between Dr.P.S.Prasad … Petitioner-A1 And 1. The State of A.P. rep. by its Station House Officer, Kukatpally P.S. Cyberabad through Public Prosecutor, Hyderabad and another. …Respondents-Complainants THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2294 OF 2009 ORDER: This Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed to quash the FIR No.382 of 2009 on the file of Kukatpally Police Station, Cyberbad, which was registered of the offences punishable under Sections 448, 427, 506,342 and 379 IPC. 2. It is alleged that the recent purchasers made constructions in their respective plots and given occupation for their labourers and drivers to protect their properties from the clutches of land grabbers. A3 to A18 were deployed by A2 on the instructions of A1 to protect the land which is under dispute before this Court purported to be the owner of land which is still pending. A3 to A18 used to warn L.Ws. 1 to 4 as well as occupants of said house properties and created terrorism. In the meantime, on the instructions of A1 under the leadership of A2, A3 to A18 on 01-04-2009 between 0030 hours and 0300 hours took two JCBs came to the house properties of complainant and his friends threatened the occupants with dire consequences wrongfully confined L.Ws. 9 and 10 and caused mischief damage by demolishing the house properties of complainant and his friends. While obstructing their illegal activities by the occupants, A3 to A18 criminally threatened with dire consequences and further taken away two cell phones of G.Raja and K.Srikanth Reddy. Hence, the complaint. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-A1 contended that even if the entire allegations in the complaint are taken as true and correct, they do not disclose prima facie case of abetment as admittedly, the petitioner was not present at the time of the alleged incident, that the allegations are levelled against A3 to A18, who threatened the prosecution witnesses, that except the allegation that A2 to A18 were acting under the instructions of A1, there is no other allegation to show that the present petitioner committed the offence punishable under Section 109 IPC and hence, he prays to quash the complaint. 4.The entire allegations in the remand report would go to show that there is no instigation or aiding or the acts of the present petitioner facilitated the other accused to commit the offence. Therefore, continuation of proceedings against the present petitioner is nothing but abuse of process of law. 5. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the FIR No.382 of 2009 on the file of Kukatpally Police Station, Cyberbad, insofar as the present petitioner-A1 is concerned. -------------------- K.C.BHANU, J DATED:20-09- 2010 Hsd