THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.4588 of 2011 ORDER:- The two petitioners herein are accused in C.C.No.1020 of 2010 on the file of the Court of VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad. The offences alleged are those punishable under Sections 448 and 506 IPC. This petition is filed for quashing the proceedings in the aforesaid C.C. The prosecution version is that both these petitioners who are husband and wife criminally trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant Susheela David and forcibly occupied a portion of it and in that process they even threatened to kill the de facto complainant. The plea of the petitioners is that the house in question belongs to the mother of the first petitioner and she got it under the Will of one Philomena Coelho who was the original owner of the house in question and there is a civil suit pending in which they obtained an order. 2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the case has been foisted and that the first petitioner is the rightful owner of the house and therefore the question of trespass does not arise. Here is a case where the police have filed a charge sheet pleading that the petitioners have trespassed into the house in question. These rival claims relating to title and possession of the house involve disputed questions of fact which can be decided only on appreciation of evidence and that cannot be done by this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioners at one stage argued that this Court can even look into the disputed questions of fact or prima facie appreciate the case of the petitioners. Having regard to the disputed questions of fact I regret I am unable to agree with this contention. 3. Accordingly this petition is dismissed at the admission stage. It shall be open for the petitioners to make an application for discharge and if such an application is filed the same shall be disposed of in accordance with law. It is represented by the petitioners counsel that the second petitioner is a lady and that she cannot attend the court for every date of hearing. In the circumstances her presence alone for every date of hearing is dispensed with and she can be represented by her counsel. It shall be open for the trial Court to summon her presence on any date it considers necessary. ______________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J 15th June, 2011 CVRK