IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRL.PETITION No. 4 5 7 3 OF 2010 Between: Nijamala Penchalaiah & 3-Ors. ..... Petitioners V/s. The State, represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP Hyderabad & Anr. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI M. VENKATNARAYANA Counsel for the Respondents: Addl.Public Prosecutor The Court made the following : (Order follows 2nd page) THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRL.PETITION No.4 5 7 3 OF 2010 O R D E R : The petitioners-A1 to A4 are accused of offences punishable under sections 166, 169, 193, 307, 419, 352, 420 read with section 34 IPC in Cr.No. 13 of 2010 of Kaluvoy Police Station of Sri Potti Sriramulu Nellore district. 2. A-1 is working as Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police in Chejarla Police Station, A-2 is wife, A-3 is daughter and A-4 is son-in-law of A-1. A3 and A4 are said to be working as teachers. There is triangular dispute with regard to landed property which is genesis of this offence, Siddana Naramma on one hand, the second respondent/defacto complainant on one hand and A-2 on the other. The said disputes are pending in Civil Courts. While so, it is alleged that on 07-3-2010 at 09:00 a.m., when the second respondent was removing Japan Babul trees in the property, which is said to have been purchased in A-2’s name, all the accused having armed with deadly weapons came upon the defacto complainant and that the accused scolded him in filthy language and beat him and attempted to kill him and that the accused threatened to file false complaint under the SCs and STs (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against him. 3. Private complaint filed by the second respondent was referred to the police for investigation under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., and thereupon the police issued the FIR in question. 4. It is contended that there is a bonafide civil dispute between the parties and it is pending in appeal in the Civil Court and that if the second respondent is beaten he would have suffered any injuries. It is evident that sections of law in this case were bloated. At best, it can be said that it is an offence of criminal intimidation attracting section 506 IPC. 5. It is contended that when the second respondent trespassed into the land and began to cut Japan Babul trees and as owners thereof the accused are entitled to prevent the second respondent from trespassing into the same. 6. On the other hand, it is alleged in the complaint that A-1, who is a Police Officer got thumb impression of one Naramma forged and got sale deed for the land registered in the name of his wife/A2. 7. This Court is of the opinion that it is a matter to be investigated into and the investigation cannot be stopped at its threshold and that there are no valid and legal grounds for quashing the FIR. Since the dispute is related to landed property and since A-1, A-3 and A-4 are stated to be Government employees, it may not be necessary for the Investigating Officer to effect arrest of them, pending investigation. 8. In the result, the petition is dismissed. However, the Investigating Officer is directed not to arrest any of the petitioners 1 to 4 during investigation. ____________________________________ Justice Samudrala Govindarajulu.. 02-06-2010. I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRL.P.NO. 4 5 7 3 OF 2010 Circulation Entry No. 2 9 Date: 02-06-2010 COMPUTER No. 43 Court Master: I s L