THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.7794 OF 2008 Dated 08-12-2011 Between: P.Mallesham and another. ..Petitioners. And: K.V.Krishnachary and another. … Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.7794 OF 2008 ORDER: This Criminal Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.100 of 2008 on the file of the court of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sangareddy for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 379 and 506 (ii) I.P.C. Petitioners herein are A.1 and A.2 in C.C.No.100 of 2008. 1st respondent herein is the defacto complainant. First respondent herein lodged a complaint before the police alleging that on 7-10-2007 at about 18-30 hours, the petitioners herein had taken away boards erected by them and threatened the watchmen Papayya and Kistayya when they raised objection. According to him, the cost of stolen boards is about Rs.20,000/-. He has also mentioned that he is working as supervisor in M/s. Kiran Krishna Real Estate and Construction (P) Limited who filed a suit in O.S.No.131 of 2007 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Sangareddy and obtained status quo order in I.A.No.540 of 2007 in O.S.No.131 of 2007. In this connection, the police registered a case in Cr.No.399 of 2007 for the offence punishable under Sections 379 and 506 (ii) I.P.C. and after completion of investigation, the police laid the charge sheet which is under challenge before this Court. The main contention of Sri K.Chidamabaram, the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners herein have purchased the properties on 24-10-2005 in pursuance of the agreement of sale entered into between their vendors and the name of the 2nd petitioner has been mutated in revenue records and he has been issued pattadar pass book. It is also his submission that the 1st respondent herein challenged the said mutation order before the Revenue Divisional Officer but was unsuccessful since the Revenue Divisional Officer rejected their claim on 10- 10-2007. Questioning the same, the revision was filed before the Joint Collector, who passed exparte order on 10-10-2007 staying the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sanga Reddy and the said orders of Joint Collector have been challenged by the 2nd petitioner in W.P.No.25962 of 2007 and interim suspension order was obtained on 6-12-2007. His main submission is that the petitioners have right, title and possession over the property and that the dispute with regard to the registered sale deed in favour of Kiran Krishna Real Estates and Constructions (P) Limited is pending before the office of the Sub- Registrar. It is also his case that Kiran Krishna Real Estates and Constructions (P) Ltd., filed a suit in O.S.No.131 of 207 seeking declaration of title in respect of the schedule property on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Sangareddy and obtained status quo orders in I.A.No.540 of 2007 but however, subsequently, said order has been vacated on 20-11-2007. The 2nd petitioner also filed O.S.No.180 of 2008 against M/s. Kiran Krishna Real Estates and Constructions (P) Limited on 9.5.2008 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sanga Reddy for perpetual injunction in respect of the very same property and also filed I.A.No.524 of 2008 in the said suit seeking perpetual injunction temporary injunction and the same has been granted on 18-09- 2008. However, M/s. Kiran Krishna Real Estates and Constructions (P) Ltd., filed a petition to set aside the exparte injunction order which is pending. The alleged date of offence is 7-10-2007. Learned counsel for the 1st petitioner submits that Kiran Krishna Real Estates and Constructions (P) Limited obtained a sale deed from its vendors on 2-7-2002 and that their vendors have executed the registered sale deed before the Sub-Registry, Sangareddy but however, the sale deed could not be registered since there was a dispute with regard to the insufficiency of the stamp duty, but however subsequently, M/s.Kiran Krishna Real Estates and Constructions (P) Limited have got the sale deed registered. His main case is that in the sale deed it is clearly mentioned that possession has been delivered to M/s Kiran Krishna Real Estates and Constructions (P) Limited. He has furnished a copy of sale deed dated 2-7- 2002 said to have been executed by Smt. Pyata Balamma and others in favour of M/s. Kiran Krishna Real Estates and Constructions Pvt. Ltd., The only point that arises for consideration is: Whether the proceedings have to be quashed or not?. As seen from the documents placed before this Court, it is clear that Smt. Pyata Balamma and others seems to have executed sale deed on 2-7-2002 in favour of M/s. Kiran Krishna Real Estates and Constructions (P) Limited and the recitals of the said sale deed go to show that possession has been delivered in favour of M/s. Kiran Krishna Real Estates and Constructions (P) Limited. It is not in dispute that vendors of the sale deed subsequently filed a suit in O.S.No.292 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Sangareddy for cancellation of the said sale deed alleging that the signature of the vendors were fraudulently obtained and they were forcibly taken to the office of the Sub-Registrar and their signatures were obtained. As seen from the averments of the petition and the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the same vendor i.e., Smt. Pyata Balamma and others seems to have executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner herein on 24-10-2005 and there was an earlier agreement of sale dated 13-9-1999. It appears that the name of the second petitioner was mutated in revenue records. It appears that Kiran Krishna Real Estates have filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sangareddy challenging the order in granting pattadar pass books in favour of the 2nd petitioner but their contention was not accepted and the said orders are challenged before this court in a separate proceedings. Admittedly, M/s. Kiran Krishna Real Estates and Constructions (P) Ltd., filed a suit in O.S.No.131 of 2007 for declaration of title and consequential injunction and obtained status order in I.A.No.540 of 2007 on 5-4-2007. The same has been vacated on 20-11-2007. Therefore, as on 1-10-2007 i.e., on the date of alleged offence, there was status quo order in favour of M/s. Kiran Krishna Real Estates and Constructions (P) Ltd., When there is a status quo order, the parties are not expected to disturb the physical features of the property. That means either parties of the suit cannot disturb the physical features of the property. Now it has to be seen as to whether the alleged Boards were already erected prior to the date of obtaining status quo order or after obtaining status orders. When the matters have been pending before the Civil Court, the parties should restrain themselves and should not create law and order problem by taking law into their hands. They should not also deal with the property or induct third party into the possession of the property. Now it has to be seen as to whether, in such a situation, whether the ingredients of trespass have been made out or not or whether removals of boards by one party amounts to theft or not are the points to be considered by the trial Court. When real owner is in possession of the property. He has every right to prevent others from entering into the property. No party can put a board or sign board in the property of others claiming it as their property. Accordingly, when dispute is pending between the parties, the petitioner ought not have erected the boards. In view of the same, the trial Court may take into consideration the main controversial issues and decide the matter on the merits of the case however not being influenced by any of the observations made supra. Since the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the First Information Report or the Charge Sheet cannot be enquired into at this stage, I am of the opinion that proceedings cannot be quashed. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is disposed of. However, the presence of the petitioner shall be dispensed with before the trial Court on their petitions and unless and until their presence is specifically required by the trial Court, their presence may not be insisted. ____________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J. Date: 08-12-2011 Dvs THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.7794 OF 2008 Dated 08-12-2011