IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.7711 of 2007 Between: P. Venkataswamy and others ... PETITIONERS a n d K. Sreenivsa Chowdary and another … RESPONDENTS ORDER: The petitioners 1 to 6/A-1 to A-6 are accused of offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 447, 448, 379 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code in Crime No.107 of 2007 of Guntakal-I Town Police Station. 2. The first respondent/defacto complainant filed complaint before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Guntakal, on 29- 11-2007 and it was forwarded by the Magistrate to the Police for investigation and report under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. Though the offence is stated to have taken place on 18-02-2007 the first respondent filed the complaint on 29-11-2007 in Court because the Police are stated to have not taken any action on the report given by the first respondent on the same date of offence. Subject matter of trespass is vacant site measuring 10 feet X 196 feet to the east of houses of A-2, A-4 and A-6 and others. 3. According to first respondent, he purchased the said site under registered sale deed dated 21-11-2006 from P.S. Sravan Kumar and on the date of offence when the first respondent was laying black granite slabs on the site, the petitioners trespassed into that site and broke the slabs and took away some slabs causing loss to an extent of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) to the first respondent. 4. Now the petitioners contend that they are owners of the site in question and their vendors have purchased the site under various sale deeds. The petitioners also produced copies of those sale deeds before this Court. It is contention of the petitioners’ counsel that dispute between the parties is purely one of civil nature and that therefore, the complaint should not have been forwarded to the Police and it should not have been registered as crime by the Police. 5. Whether sale deeds in favour of the petitioners/accused cover the vacant site which is the disputed site lying to the east of their houses or whether their sale deeds pertained to only house properties in their possession and whether the person who sold the site to the first respondent has got any title to the site, are all questions of fact which this Court cannot go into in this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 6. It is for the Investigating Officer to go prima facie into those questions and come to a conclusion on the above questions and finally arrive at whether the petitioners trespassed into the site or whether the first respondent trespassed into the site under the colour of a registered sale deed. 7. In those circumstances, it is for the Investigating Officer to go into all aspects of the case and to come to a conclusion whether the dispute is one of civil nature or not or whether under the garb of civil dispute the petitioners are trying to grab appurtenant site. I do not find any valid or legal reasons to intercept the investigation at its threshold. 8. In the result, the petition is dismissed. However, until conclusion of investigation the Investigating Officer may not arrest any of the petitioners. The Investigating Officer can do so in case he comes to the conclusion that it is a highhanded act on the part of the petitioners, after investigation. ________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J July 08, 2010. PN HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.7711 of 2007 July 08, 2010