THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No. 2639 of 2009 ORDER: 1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.996 of 2008 on the file of the XI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy at L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad. 2. Though notice was issued to the second respondent herein, who is the defacto complainant, it returned as not claimed. Though notice is served on third respondent, who claims to be owner of property bearing plot no.113, Sai Nagar Colony, Chaitanyapuri, Hyderabad, none appears for him and there is no representation on his behalf. 3. The allegation is that on 27.11.2008 at about 5.30 PM, while the defacto complainant was residing in plot no.113, Sainagar Colony, Chaitanyapuri, the accused along with their associates attacked him and his wife, and threatened with dire consequences. Police registered the case and filed charge sheet for the offences under Sections 448 and 323 I.P.C. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners herein purchased the property bearing plot no.113 located in Sainagar Colony, Chaitanyapuri under registered sale deed dated 27.01.2005 and since then they are in possession of the property. As a matter of fact, the third respondent herein filed Original Suit No.369 of 2005 on the file of the V Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy, for perpetual injunction. Incidentally, he also filed I.A. No.545 of 2005 therein for grant of temporary injunction. The civil Court held that, as the petitioner therein (R.3 herein) failed to establish that he purchased the property from Saleh Ul Badri, the question of possession over the suit schedule property by the third respondent herein does not arise and accordingly dismissed the injunction petition. On appeal in C.M.A. No.201 of 2005, the learned II Additional District & Sessions Judge did not interfere with the order of the trial Court, but directed the trial Court to dispose of the suit. Thereafter, the third respondent filed an application in I.A. No.608 of 2008 before the trial Court for permission to withdraw the suit, and the said application was allowed and the suit was dismissed as not pressed. Therefore, when third respondent was not shown to be in possession of the property in question, the question of his servant, who is the second respondent herein, living in a portion therein does not arise, because the servant is claiming his right of possession through his master who is the third respondent. When the master himself does not have any possession over the property, the question of second respondent to be in possession of the property does not arise. In view of the fact that there is a bona fide civil disputes pending between the parties, the question of criminal trespass does not arise. Therefore, continuation of the impugned proceedings against the petitioner is nothing but abuse of process of Court. 5. The Criminal Petition is, accordingly, allowed. The proceedings in C.C. No.996 of 2008 on the file of the XI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy at L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad are quashed. ----------------------- (K.C.Bhanu, J.) 19.08.2010 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No. 2639 of 2009 Date: 19.8.2010 Between: Kota Sanjay Kumar & another …Petitioners And State of A.P. rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad & others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No. 2639 of 2009 19.8.2010