IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRL.P.NO.3439 OF 2010. Date:28.04.2010 Between:- Pasupuleti Malakondaiah Naidu and others ..Petitioners/Accused And T.Chiranjeevi and another .. Respondents ORDER:- The petitioners 1 to 4 are accused of offences punishable under Sections 447 and 188 I.P.C. in Crime No.78 of 2010 of Ongole Taluk Police Station. It was registered by the police on report given by the first respondent, who is the Tahsildar and Mandal Executive Magistrate, Ongole. It is alleged that inspite of order dated 26.02.2010 promulgated by the first respondent under Section 145 Cr.P.C. directing all the parties not to enter into land in Sy.No.173 of Mukthinuthalapadu village, the petitioners trespassed into that land and made construction of wall in the disputed land. 2. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that there is already an interim injunction order granted by III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ongole in O.S.No.705 of 2009 in favour of the first petitioner and his wife against the defendants therein. It is stated that the Mandal Revenue Officer, Ongole was subsequently added as party to that suit and that interim injunction is only against the original defendants. 3. Subject matter of the civil litigation is only landed property. Subsequently, the Tahsildar (Mandal Revenue Officer), as Mandal Executive Magistrate, promulgated order dated 26.02.2010 directing all the parties not to enter into the land in Sy.No.173 till survey thereof is completed. It is alleged that the petitioners violated the said order passed by the Mandal Executive Magistrate under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and began constructing a compound wall in the disputed land, which is being claimed by the first petitioner and his wife. 4. Admittedly, there is no order passed by the civil Court permitting the first petitioner and his wife to make any constructions or to construct a compound wall in the disputed land covered by the suit. The interim injunction is only restraining the defendants therein from interfering with possession and enjoyment of the first petitioner and his wife. Under the guise of the said interim injunction order, the petitioners wanted to construct a compound wall in the disputed site. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that the compound wall was not constructed subsequent to promulgation of order by the Executive Magistrate under Section 145 Cr.P.C., but it was constructed long prior to the order dated 26.02.2010 of the Mandal Executive Magistrate. It is a question of fact as to when the construction of wall was started, whether it was prior to or subsequent to order dated 26.02.2010 of the Mandal Executive Magistrate. The allegations in the report given by the first respondent to the police, if taken on their face value, reveal the offences for which the F.I.R. was issued. This Court cannot go into and decide questions of fact in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Therefore, I do not find any valid or legal reasons to quash F.I.R. in this case. 5. Hence, the petition is dismissed. _​_________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J 28th April 2010 AMD