IN THE HGIH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICITON) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No.238 OF 2008 BETWEEN: Rudrapati Ragapa Naidu S/o. Venkaiah …. Petitioner AND The State of A.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor High Court, Hyderabad and another …. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No.238 OF 2008 ORDER: This Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed by the petitioner – accused seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.C. No.658 of 2007 on the file of IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore, arising out of Crime No.281 of 2007 of Nellore Rural Police Station, Nellore registered for the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 506 read with 34 IPC. 2. The case of the de facto complainant is that he is the owner of the land to an extent of Acs.04.98 cents and a dibba of 0.30 cents at Amamcherla village, Nellore Rural Mandal. The petitioner has encroached Ac.0.06 cents of dibba land out of Ac.0.30 cents. In this connection, the de facto complainant approached the Court and obtained permanent injunction in respect of Acs.04.98 cents of land. On 19-08-2007 at about 08-30 hours, while the de facto complainant was erecting a hut in the remaining portion of Ac.0.24 cents of land through coolies, the petitioner trespassed into the said land, picked out the wooden pegs and threatened him with dire consequences. Thereafter, the de facto complainant lodged a complaint with the police of Nellore Rural Police Station against the petitioner. The police registered a case in Crime No.281 of 2007 and on 22-09-2007 the accused was arrested and was released on bail. During investigation, police examined the witnesses and it was elicited that the petitioner alone is responsible for the incident and thus, deleted Section 34 IPC from the case. 3. Heard. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner of the land in dispute, that the competent Civil Court has passed judgment on 04-04-2006 in O.S. No.1268 of 2003 confirming the right, title and interest of the petitioner over the land and therefore, the question of trespass does not arise. 5. There cannot be any dispute that inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised by this Court to prevent abuse of process of Court or to secure the ends of justice, or to give effect to the orders under this code. If the allegations in the complaint made out a prima facie case of the offence punishable under Sections 407 and 506 IPC, question of quashing the complaint does not arise. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner is right in contending that there cannot be any trespass by the petitioner in respect of his own property. But, as seen from the judgment dated 04-04-2006, in O.S. No.1268 of 2003 passed by the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore, it is clear that no finding has been given by the learned Judge with regard to right, title and interest of the petitioner in respect of Ac.0 .06 cents of land. 7. The allegation is that when the de facto complainant erecting a hut in the remaining portion of Ac.0.24 cents of dibba land, the petitioner trespassed into the said land and threatened him with dire consequences, which made out a prima facie offence. Therefore, the question of quashing the impugned proceedings against the petitioner does not arise. 8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _____________ K.C. BHANU, J December 23, 2009. KTL