IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD (23RD) DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Criminal Petition No.7602 of 2009 Between: Sista Ramesh … Petitioner And: The Station House Officer, Ramachandrapuram PS, Medak district, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad & another … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Criminal Petition No.7602 of 2009 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash further proceedings against the petitioner-accused in C.C.No.445 of 2009 on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Sangareddy. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. Perused the record. 3. On a complaint given by the 2nd respondent herein the S.H.O., Ramachandrapuram PS, registered FIR No.147 of 2007 against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 341, 427 and 506 IPC and after due investigation filed a charge sheet before the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sangareddy and the same was taken cognizance in CC No.445 of 2009. According to the prosecution, one Kata Venkaiah, Smt. Kata Anusuya, Kata Lingamaiah, Kata Darshan and Kata Krishna were having 20 acres of land in Sy.Nos.193, 194, 323 and 324 situated in the outskirts of Ameenapura village of Patancheru Mandal and in the year 1987 they entered into an agreement of sale with one Mohan Reddy. The said Mohan Reddy prepared a lay out, named as ‘Padmavathi Nagar Colony’ and sold out plots in about 10 acres. Later he obtained G.P.A. from the above landowners and sold plots in an extent of five acres. The remaining five acres of land was purchased by one Rambhupal Redy, who also purchased another 100 plots in the same lay out and erected stone walls around his plots blocking the access to the road to HMT Colony people. It is further alleged that the said Rambhupal Reddy and the accused are the partners and they purchased the plots in Padmavathi Nagar Colony. The accused started development work in his plots and dumped construction material on the road and damaged some of the roads due to which inconvenience was caused to the colony people. When the colony people raised objection, the accused threatened them with dire consequences. 4. The Police have deleted the name of Rambhupal Reddy, while filing the charge sheet on the ground that except mentioning his name, nobody came forward to disclose anything about him. It is however, stated in the charge sheet that the followers of Rambhupal Reddy have done the said acts. When that is so, it is surprising how the Investigating Officer failed to take any steps to identify the said followers of Rambhupal Reddy and initiate prosecution against them also. The failure of the investigating agency to nab the followers of Rambhupal Reddy does not, however, provide any event to the petitioner to escape from the clutches of law, when specific allegations have been made against him alleging that he caused obstruction to the free passage of the colony people by dumping construction material on the roads and damaging the roads. Simply because the petitioner happens to be the follower or a partner of Rambhupal Reddy, who is stated to be the MLA of Panyam, he cannot get away from the consequences of the alleged acts, if proved. The allegations contained in the charge sheet prima-facie attract the ingredients of the offences alleged. The truth or otherwise of the said allegation, however, would come out only after necessary evidence is adduced during the course of trial. 5. It is well settled that the inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have to be exercised with due care and caution and cannot be invoked to scuttle the prosecution, especially when the charge sheet prima-facie discloses commission of offences alleged. It is therefore, considered not a fit case to invoke the inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quash further proceedings in CC No.445 of 2009 on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Sangareddy. 6. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. ___________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 23.11.2010 bss