HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.11450 OF 2010 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings in Crime No.264 of 2010, on the file of Station House Officer, Langar House Police Station, Hyderabad pending on the file of the Court of VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, registered for offences punishable under Sections 341, 506, 380 read with Section 34 I.P.C. 2. There is no representation on behalf of the Petitioners. Heard the learned Additional Public prosecutor appearing for the Respondents-State. 3. The second Respondent herein is the de-facto complainant. Her case is that her sister Azra Nafiz is running “Sufi Beauty Parlor” at Nanal Nagar and that on 21-08-2010 at about 03-00 p.m. the shop owner i.e. the first Petitioner herein along with 7 to 8 ladies entered into the said beauty parlor shop and sent out the customers in the shop, took cash from the counter, pushed her and also bite on her hands and locked the shop. Basing on the same the Police registered a case in Crime No.264 of 2010 under Sections 341, 506, 3809 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and during the course of investigation, A-3 was arrested while he was shifting the stolen beauty parlor furniture and cosmetics to A-1’s house. In the investigation it was revealed that A-1 is the owner of the mulgi and the same was let out to the sister of the de-facto complainant, Smt. Azra Nafiz, who was running beauty parlor and when A-1 asked Smt. Azra Nafiz to vacate the mulgi, she refused to vacate and then the incident occurred. 4. The case of the Petitioners is that the dispute is of civil nature. The Petitioners along with the petition filed a copy of the suit filed against Azra Nafiz and others for perpetual injunction on the file of X Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Admittedly, the said suit was filed on 25-08-2010 and the first Petitioner had also obtained interim injunction order on the same day in I.A. No. 524 of 2010. She has also produced the rental deed dated 1st September, 2010 showing that she has let out the premises to one K.M.A. Fasi. All these documents are subsequent to the date of lodging of the complaint. 5. Considering the allegations made in the Complaint, it cannot be said that the said allegations do not make out a prima-facie case. It is settled law that the disputed facts cannot be decided in quash proceedings. In the circumstances it is clear that there is nothing to quash the proceedings. Therefore, I do not see any reason to quash the proceedings. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _____________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J Dated: 17-11-2011. Dsh. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR 176 CRIMINAL PETITION No.11450 of 2010 Date:17-11-2011 DSH.