HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA CRIMINAL PETITION No.8008 OF 2008 ORDER: The petitioners/A-1 to A-3 in C.C.No.350 of 2007 on the file of the VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Medchal, have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 seeking to quash the proceedings of the said C.C. 2. The petitioners, who are A-1 to A-3, are charged for the offences under Sections 447 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, as they, dishonestly and fraudulently, in order to grab the house sites/plots of the 2nd respondent-de facto complainant and others, trespassed into those plots and constructed a compound wall illegally. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners/A-1 to A-3 submits that none of the listed witnesses in the charge sheet including the 2nd respondent-de facto complainant supported the version of the prosecution, that A-1 along with A-2 and A-3 dishonestly and fraudulently, in order to grab the house plots of the de facto complainant and others, trespassed into their plots and constructed a compound wall illegally, that though there is no sufficient material to warrant laying of charge sheet, the police have laid the charge sheet against A-2 and A-3 along with A-1 and that since it is a case of summons, the accused have no right to seek discharge and that the only way is to invoke the powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and in support of his contentions he placed reliance on the decisions reported in Subramanium Sethuraman v. State of Maharastra and another[1] and Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal[2]. He also contends that the dispute is purely of civil nature. 4. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the decisions on which the learned counsel for the petitioners/A-1 to A-3 relied, are the cases in which no allegations were made against the accused. Whereas, in the case on hand, there are specific allegations made against the petitioners/A-1 to A-3 in the complaint by the 2nd respondent-de facto complainant. That it was A-1, who has committed the offences, whereas in the charge sheet it is stated that A-1 along with A-2 and A-3 has committed the alleged offences. He further submits that A-1 also owns some plots in Shantinagar Colony in Sy.No.811-Part of Upparpalli village of Neredmet of Shamirpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. As such, he contends that trespassing into the de facto complainant’s land and constructing a compound wall needs the help of others and, therefore, A-1 must have committed the offences with the help of A-2 and A-3. Therefore, the names of A-2 and A-3 were also added as accused. 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also after hearing both sides, this Court is of the view that it is not a fit case to quash to the proceedings exercising the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and as such the petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ________________ B.N. RAO NALLA,J 10.11.2011 MR HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA CRIMINAL PETITION No.8008 OF 2008 10.11.2011 MR [1] 2005 (1) ALD (Crl.) 124 SC [2] 2004 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1927