THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.7127 of 2011 and 9655 of 2009 COMMON ORDER: Since the parties in both the criminal petitions are one and the same, they heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. Petitioners approach this Court by way of invoking the provisions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to set aside the order dt.21.02.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Udaygiri, Nellore District, where by the learned Magistrate issued warrants against the petitioners herein. This Court perused the records and heard the arguments. The petitioners are facing trial for an offence under Sections 452, 506 and 323 read with 34 IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners already obtained stay by this Court in Crl.M.P.No.9414 of 2009 in Crl.P.No.9655 of 2009. During the pendency of the order, the learned Magistrate issued warrants against the petitioners herein and further submitted that even though in the order passed by this Court, there is no time limit specified and it is stated as ‘THERE SHALL BE INTERIM STAY’ and to post the matter after four weeks. Learned Magistrate issued warrant on the ground that the pendency of the criminal petition and the progress in the said criminal petition are not informed to the Court by the petitioners. After hearing the arguments of both counsel, this Court is of the view that Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are willing to appear before the court and to face the trial. In view of the same, the warrants issued against the petitioners are hereby recalled and the petitioners are directed to appear before the Court on the next date of hearing. Thereafter, their presence before the trial Court is dispensed with except the dates on which the learned Magistrate insists for the same. As far as the Criminal Petition 9655 of 2009 is concerned, the learned counsel submitted that the petitioners herein have taken the pattadar pass book and other documents from the possession of the watchman and according to him, the first petitioner – first accused is the owner of the property and for the above said documents, he is entitled to have in his possession. But the learned counsel fairly submitted that it is a partnership firm. Hence, the partners lodged a complaint through the present complainant, who is a watchman to the partnership firm. This Court is of the view the said facts can be raised before the trial Court at the time of trial, as the said facts are to be appreciated only by the trial Court. Hence, this Court is not inclined to pass any orders at the stage. Hence, the Criminal Petitions are dismissed. The miscellaneous petitions, if any, filed along with the criminal petitions shall stand closed. _____________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 17th August 2011, Rns.