THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Petition No.8494 of 2008 28th September, 2011 Between :- Dr.M.M.Bahbood and another .. Petitioners And The State of A.P., Through P.S.,Dabeerpura Hyderabad and another .. Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Petition No.8494 of 2008 ORDER:- This petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by A.3 and A.6 in Crime No.160 of 2008 of Dabeerpura P.S., Hyderabad, to quash the proceeding therein. The 2nd respondent is the complainant. He presented a complaint before the VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, on 12-9-2008, alleging, inter alia, that the petitioners herein along with other accused trespassed into his house,broke open the door locks and committed theft of jewellery worth of Rs.1,50,000/- apart from cash of Rs.25,000/-. The said complaint came to be forwarded to the Station House Officer, Dabeerpura P.S., under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. Thereupon, the Station House Officer, Dabeerpura P.S., registered a case against the petitioners herein and others for the offences under Sections 454 and 380 of I.P.C. and issued F.I.R. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners – A.3 and A.6 and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 – de- facto complainant. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the respondent No.2 – de-facto complainant filed a suit for partition in respect of the house bearing No.22-2-692, Darushifa, Hyderabad, and the said suit ended in dismissal. Thereupon A.1 – M.M.Jaffar filed a suit for injunction restraining R.2 – de-facto complainant from interfering with his possession and moved Interlocutory Application seeking interim injunction. Since, the Interlocutory Application ended in dismissal, he filed C.M.A.No.14 of 2008 and the said C.M.A. came to be allowed granting interim injunction restraining respondent No.2 – de-facto complainant. A further submission has been made that a specific finding has been given in the partition suit filed by the respondent No.2 – de-facto complainant that the property in question is not the joint family property and therefore the respondent No.2 – de- facto complainant has no right to claim any share in the property. Learned Counsel drew my attention to the finding recorded by the V- Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in O.S.No.210 of 2001 and also the findings recorded by the III-Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in C.M.A.No.14 of 2008. Learned Counsel appearing for R.2 – de-facto complainant submits that the de-facto complainant is in possession of the premises bearing No.22-2-692 and it is the petitioners along with other accused who trespassed into the house by breaking the locks and committed theft of gold ornaments and cash and therefore the proceedings in F.I.R.No.160 of 2008 are not liable to be quashed. I had given my anxious consideration to the rival contentions of the parties. Respondent No.2 herein filed O.S.No.210 of 2001 against M.M.Jaffar, who is no other than his brother, claiming that premises bearing No. 2-2-692 is a joint family property. Learned Senior Civil Judge on thorough consideration of the evidence brought on record came to the conclusion that the suit schedule property is not a joint family property an therefore the plaintiff is not entitled for any share. For better appreciation, I may refer to para 22 of the Judgment in O.S.No.210 of 2001, which reads as hereunder:- “This Court for the reasons and discussion made in the above foregoing issues hold that the plaint schedule property is not a property jointly purchased by plaintiff, defendants 1 and 2 and the husband of defendant No.3 by equally contributing their shares in respect of the sale consideration and therefore the suit is liable to be dismissed in its entirety without any relief as the plaint schedule property is not available for partition among the plaintiff, defendants 1 and 2 and the husband of defendant No.3” A.1 – M.M.Jaffar who is one of the defendants in O.S.No.210 of 2001 has filed suit for injunction against R.2 – de-facto complainant and secured interim order on 19-2-2008. The material brought on record clearly established that A.1 is in possession of the property in dispute. The petitioners herein are no other than the children of A.1. The contention of the de-facto complainant that he is in possession of the premises bearing No.2-2-2692 has been negatived by the competent Civil Court. Therefore the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners amounts to abuse of process of law. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in Crime No.160 of 2008 of Dabeerpura P.S., Hyderabad, against the petitioners, who arrayed as A.3 and A.6 are hereby quashed. As a sequel to it, interim stay granted on 23-12-2008 stands vacated. _________________________ B.Seshasayana Reddy, J 28th September, 2011 smr