THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.7747 of 2008 Dated:- 17th November, 2011 Between Buchi Naidu …Petitioner AND The State of A.P. and another …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.7747 of 2008 ORDER:- This criminal petition has been to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.500 of 2008 on the file of the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad which was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 448 and 323 IPC. 2. The petitioner herein is the father-in-law of the second respondent/de facto complainant, i.e., the father of the wife of the second respondent. The marriage of the second respondent with the daughter of the petitioner was solemnized on 13.05.2007. The petitioner’s case is that a residential flat was purchased in the name of his daughter. Subsequently disputes arose between the parties. The second respondent filed O.P.No.859 of 2007 before the Family Court, Visakhapatnam seeking divorce. Then the daughter of the petitioner filed O.P.No.252 of 2008 on the file of the same Court for restitution of conjugal rights. Then the second respondent herein filed O.S.No.130 of 2008 before the VII Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for declaration and injunction. Initially, ad interim injunction was granted in I.A.No.62 of 2008, but however, on appeal by the petitioner, the order of ad interim injunction was modified to that of status quo order in C.M.A.No.395 of 2008 by this Court. Then this Court suspended the said order in CMAMP (SR) No.20883 of 2008 in CMA (SR) No.20881 of 2008 and subsequently the said CMA was allowed and the matter was remanded to the Court below with certain directions. Then subsequently, the ad interim injunction which was granted earlier in favour of the second respondent was vacated as per the order dated 21.07.2008 in I.A.No.62 of 2008 by the VII Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 3. As the matter stood thus, on 13.04.2008, the second respondent lodged a complaint with police, Amberpet, that the petitioner, his daughter (wife of the second respondent) and other person trespassed into his flat and manhandled him and threatened him with dire consequences if the flat is not returned to them. 4. Anyhow, the fact remains that the flat has been purchased in the name of the daughter of the petitioner. Who paid the sale consideration and who has better title etc., are the issues to be decided by the competent civil Court in appropriate proceedings. When the documents of the flat prima facie stands in the name of the daughter of the petitioner, it appears that offence under Section 448 IPC is clearly not made out. As far as the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC is concerned, admittedly, it is a non- cognizable offence. Therefore, the police would not have investigated the case without the prior permission of the Court. Of course, when the complaint is lodged for the offence punishable under Section 448 IPC, the police have power to investigate the matter including the non-cognizable offence. But however, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the subsequent findings of the civil Court, it is clear that the offence punishable under Section 448 IPC is not made out against the petitioner and once cognizable offence under Section 448 IPC is not made out against the petitioner, continuing the proceedings in respect of non-cognizable offence under Section 323 IPC appears to be not legal. 5. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.500 of 2008 on the file of the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad are hereby quashed. _________________________ Justice B.Chandra Kumar 17th November, 2011 Bvv