THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.5062 of 2009 Dated 28th April, 2011 Between: P.Thajkumar and others …Petitioners And The Principal Secretary, Home Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri G.Allabaksh Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 5: AGP for Home Counsel for respondent Nos.6 & 7: Sri Akkam Eswar For Sri V.Hanumantha Rao The Court made the following: ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to quash the proceedings in F.I.R.No.40 of 2008 on the file of Wanaparthy Town Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 427 and 447 IPC and Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’). The petitioners are the accused in the above criminal case registered on the private complaint filed by respondent Nos.6 and 7. In the complaint filed by respondent Nos.6 and 7 in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Wanaparthy, it is inter alia alleged that there is a dispute over plot admeasuring 35 x 45 in Survey No.53/Aa. Petitioner No.3 filed O.S.No.89 of 2000 in the Court of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy for declaration of title, recovery of possession and mandatory injunction to remove the structures over the said plot. The said suit was decreed on 06.02.2006. Without filing EP for demolition of the structure, the petitioners are stated to have attempted to demolish the structures on 03.05.2008 at 2.00 pm. When respondent Nos.6 and 7 allegedly tried to resist the said attempts, petitioner Nos.1 and 2 allegedly abused the said respondents by stating the following words – “mee chenchu munda kodukulaku illu yandukura, miru gudiselulla bathakali ra”. It is also alleged that the petitioners have shifted some material of stones and steel on that day and that again on 05.06.2008, they have brought six coolies to the property in question and damaged the property to the extent of Rs.3,00,000/-. The jurisdictional Magistrate has forwarded the complaint under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., to respondent No.5- Police Station, upon which, the above criminal case was registered. Seeking quashing of this case, the present writ petition is filed. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondent Nos.6 and 7. At the hearing, Sri G.Alla Baksh, learned counsel for the petitioners, stated that registration of criminal case constitutes abuse of process of law and Court. He has further contended that his clients have succeeded in obtaining a decree for declaration of title, recovery of possession and mandatory injunction and therefore, as a counter blast, respondent Nos.6 and 7 have given the complaint, which ought not to have been registered, as the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature. The learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Trilok Singh and others v. Satya Deo Tripathi[1] in support of his submission. Opposing the above contentions, the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.6 and 7 submitted that the petitioners cannot commit offences in the guise of a civil dispute and that whether the petitioners have committed the offences as alleged in the complaint needs to be investigated into by the police and decided by the jurisdictional Magistrate. I have carefully considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel. A perusal of the complaint filed by respondent Nos.6 and 7 would show that specific allegations regarding abuse of respondent Nos.6 and 7 in the name of caste have been made. It is trite that the scope of interference of this Court with the criminal proceedings either in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is very limited. Unless the allegations contained in the FIR or the charge sheet, as the case may be, taken on their face value do not disclose commission of an offence, this Court would not interfere with the investigation into the criminal cases (See State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal[2], R.P.Kapur v. State of Punjab[3], State of Bihar v. J.A.C.Saldanha[4] and State of West Bengal v. Swapan Kumar Guha[5]. Even though the complaint was filed by respondent Nos.6 and 7 in the backdrop of a civil litigation, in which, the petitioners succeeded in obtaining a decree, that by itself would not absolve the petitioners of criminal liability, if it is evidently proved that they have committed an offence. The truth or otherwise of the allegations made against the petitioners requires to be investigated into by the police. The judgment in Trilok Singh (supra) turned out on different facts, which do not bear any similarity with the facts of this case. In my opinion, the allegations contained in the complaint attract the provisions of Section 3(1) (v) and (x) of the Act. Therefore, no mandamus can be issued to prevent the police from investigating into the case. For the above-mentioned reasons, the writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, the interim order, dated 20.03.2009, granted by this Court in W.P.M.P.No.6617 of 2009, shall stand vacated and W.P.M.P.No.6617 of 2009 and W.V.M.P.No.4342 of 2010 are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 28th April, 2011 VGB [1] AIR 1979 SC 850 [2] 1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335 [3] AIR 1960 SC 866 [4] 1980 (1) SCC 554 [5] 1982 (1) SCC 561