IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.571 OF 2009 Between : Aruga Sridhar Babu and another .... PETITIONERS A N D State of Andhra Pradesh and another …RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.571 OF 2009 The point that arises for determination in this petition, which is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”), is whether the proceedings in C.C.No.314 of 2007 on the file of Court of VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy (trial Court) should be quashed. 2. The petitioners herein are A.1 to A.3 in the above case. The offences alleged against them are those punishable under Sections 447, 427 and 506 read with Section 34 I.P.C. The dispute is with respect to certain agricultural lands. The petitioners plea is that the first petitioner filed O.S.No.1718 of 2006, which is pending in the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy, L.B.Nagar, for cancellation of sale deed dated 27.06.2005, which is said to have been executed by the legal heirs of the original pattadars in favour of the third respondent herein. Their further case is that the first petitioner earlier purchased this land from the legal heirs of the original pattadars, through a registered sale deed, dated 24.07.2004, and as his sale deed is a prior sale deed, he is in possession and enjoyment of the property in his own right as its rightful owner. It is also stated on behalf of the petitioners that initially in a temporary injunction petition filed in O.S.No.1718 of 2006, injunction was granted in favour of the first petitioner. But at this stage the learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 points out that the said temporary injunction was vacated in C.M.A.No.720 of 2007, wherein the temporary injunction granted by the trial Court was set aside and status-quo ordered to be maintained and directing the trial Court to take up the injunction petition again and dispose of it on merits. 3. The plea of the petitioners is that though status-quo order has been passed, they continued to be in possession of the land in dispute whereas this is denied by respondent Nos.2 and 3. It is also contended on behalf of the petitioners that since the civil suit is pending, the police have no power to register the criminal case either with regard to an allegation of possession or otherwise in respect of the disputed land and, therefore, the present proceedings should be quashed. There is no force in his contentions. There is no rule of law, which says that just because a civil matter is pending, the police have no power to take up investigation when the offences are reported. 4. Then, coming to the question whether the proceedings should be quashed or not, it should be noted that a perusal of the charge sheet would show that the case against the petitioners is based on an eye witnesses account of one Pulimamidi Harikishan Reddy and another Sri Devavaram, and there is also the evidence of panch witness. Whether this evidence is correct or not can be decided only after trial and this Court just by going through 161 Cr.P.C. statements and First Information Report, which weigh in favour of the prosecution, at this stage, cannot say that the whole case is false. This is not a case where it can be said that there is no basis at all for institution of the criminal case. The contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners more pertain to their defence in the matter and that has to be adjudicated only by the trial Court. 5. In the above circumstances, the point is decided in negative and this criminal petition is dismissed. _____________________ N.RAVI SHANKAR,J DECEMBER 24, 2010. YVL