IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRL.P.NO.3482 OF 2010. Date:20.04.2010 Between:- G.Bhavani Shanker and others ..Petitioners/A-1 to A-4 And The State of A.P., rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. at Hyderabad and another .. Respondents ORDER:- The petitioners 1 to 4 belong to one family. The petitioners 1 and 2 were J.D.Rs in R.C.C.No.17 of 1999. M.Subbarathnamma, who is the D.H.R. in R.C.C.No.17 of 1999, obtained eviction order against the petitioners 1 and 2 in respect of one house property. It is stated that the said eviction order was confirmed even by this Court. The D.H.R. filed E.P.No.120 of 2009 for physically evicting the J.D.Rs from possession of the premisis. It is stated that when Field Assistant of the Court went to the property, the entire articles in the premisis were removed therefrom, but the premisis was locked. For breaking open locks and for police aid, the D.H.R. filed petition before the Rent Controller, Nellore and obtained orders and went to the property for taking possession. At that time, this offence is stated to have taken place. 2. On perusal of report given by the second respondent/defacto complainant, it is evident that allegations therein prima facie do attract offences punishable under Section 323 I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of the S.Cs and S.Ts (P.O.A.)Act. 3. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that as against High Court’s order confirming the eviction, the petitioners 1 and 2 filed proceedings before the Supreme Court and that false case was foisted against the petitioners with a view to coerce them from not pursuing proceedings before the Supreme Court. 4. Even though the eviction proceedings have been pending since the year 1999, till now for eleven years, the D.H.R. and her people did not take any false steps and were taking only legal steps. Truth or falsity of allegations in the report is a question of fact and the said question cannot be gone into and decided in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is for the police to conclude the same having regard to evidence to be collected on this aspect. At this stage, I do not find any valid and legal reasons to interfere with investigation at this stage. 5. In the result, the petition is dismissed. _​_________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J 20th April 2010 AMD