IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.6315 of 2009 DATE:03.09.2010 Between: Talla Ramireddy and others …… Petitioners And: The State of A.P., rep. By its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.6315 of 2009 ORDER : The petitioners 1 to 3/A-1 to A-3 are accused of offences punishable under Sections 447, 323, 379, 120-B, 109 I.P.C and Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(1) (v) of the S.Cs and S.Ts (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short, the Act). The petitioners seek quashing of an un-numbered P.R.C in Crime No.24 of 2008 of Tadikonda Police Station. According to the prosecution allegations, the offence took place on 28.02.2008 in Ac.2.00 of land in D.No.202 of Ravela village. There is civil dispute relating to the said property between the prosecution party and the accused party and it is O.S.No.795 of 2006 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, which is transferred to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri and renumbered as O.S. No.210 of 2008. It is alleged that A-1 and A-2 conspired with A-3 to take possession of the land from the 2nd respondent/defacto-complainant and that in pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy, A-3 brought coolies from Medikonduru village without informing the coolies about the dispute and making them to believe that there is urgent work in the field of his brother-in-law. It is further alleged that A-1 to A-3 trespassed into the leased land of the 2nd respondent and got chillies in the said land plucked by the coolies and that when the 2nd respondent and another tried to retrieve the accused, A-1 and A-2 abused the 2nd respondent and another in the name of their caste in filthy language and assaulted them and drove them away from their leased land at the instigation of A-3 and that A-1 to A-3 forcibly took away chillies which were cultivated in that land by the 2nd respondent, in a tractor and that on 29.02.2008 A-3 sold away chillies brought from the complainant’s land near Mirchi Yard, Guntur. 2) It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that when there is a bonafide civil dispute pending between parties regarding the land, the question of filing charge sheet for offences under Sections 447 and 379 I.P.C will not arise at all and that when the 2nd respondent and others trespassed into the disputed land which is in possession of A-1 and A-2, they have every right of private defence in driving them away using force and therefore offence punishable under Section 323 I.P.C cannot be instituted against the accused and that having regard to back ground of the civil dispute, the allegations under Section 3(i)(x) and 3(i)(v) of the Act are inherently improbable and the said allegations are malafide in nature. It is further contended by the petitioners’ counsel that names of the 2nd respondent and another victim themselves suggest that they belong to Christian religion and are not persons belonging to schedule caste. 3) It is not the petitioners’ case that the civil Court passed any interim order in favour of A-1 or A-2. In so far as caste relating to the victims is concerned, the investigating officer ascertained caste particulars of the victims from the witness No.15 who is Tahsildar, Tadikonda Mandal. Therefore, this Court in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C cannot go into the disputed question relating to the caste to which the victims belong to. Further, the alleged improbabilities contended by the petitioners’ counsel would be relevant at the time of appreciation of evidence of the material let in by both the parties during trial in the lower Court. The probabilities would be relevant for deciding the questions of fact. Truth or otherwise of the allegations cannot be gone into and decided in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 4) It is contended that A-3 is an Advocate and he has no role to play in the property dispute between both the parties. As per the prosecution case, it i s A-3 who played pivotal role behind A-1 and A-2 for this offence. It is alleged that A-3 engaged coolies from a different village Medikonduru on some misrepresentation to the coolies and brought them to the disputed land for plucking chillies grown in the land. It is also further alleged that it is only at the instigation of A-3 who was present in person at the time of offence at the scene of offence, the entire offence is stated to have taken place. Having regard to the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners are not entitled for the relief of quashing of the proceedings in this petition. 5) In the result, the petition is dismissed. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J September 03, 2010 KSH