IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.5063 OF 2008 Between: Pyla Appa Rao & 8 others … PETITIONERS And The State of A.P. & another … RESPONDENTS This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.5063 OF 2008 ORDER: 1. The petitioners 1 to 9/A1 to A9 are accused of offences punishable under Sections 447, 427, 379 read with 511 I.P.C. in C.C.No.134 of 2007, on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the I Class, Salur. It is a private complaint filed by the second respondent. Previously, the same dispute was investigated into by the police in Crime No.48 of 2006 and the Salur town police referred the case as false. 2. Dispute between the complainant and A1 is with regard to identity of the land in which teak trees were cut by A1. The record reveals that A1 obtained permission from authorized department for felling teak trees in his land in S.No.237/3 & 6. The complainant has nothing to do with the said lands in S.No.237/3 & 6. The complainant is owner of land in S.No.237/1 & 2 of Gumadam Village within the limits of Salur Municipality. Alleging that A1 along with other accused trespassed into his land in S.No.237/1 & 2 and fell teak trees, the complainant filed the case in the lower Court. The dispute in this case is whether teak trees were cut in the land in S.No.237/1 & 2 or the land in S.No.237/3 & 6. Neither the police nor criminal Court can decide the said land dispute between the parties. There is no dispute that a civil suit in O.S.No.162 of 2006 is pending between the parties in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Salur, regarding the land in S.No.237/3 & 6. So, the present dispute is predominantly a civil dispute between the parties. There is bonafide claim of right, title and possession in respect of the land from which the teak trees were cut by A1. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the dispute covered by the case is purely one of civil nature and it cannot be entertained by the criminal Court. 3. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed quashing proceedings in C.C.No.134 of 2007, on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the I Class, Salur. ______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J August 05, 2010 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.5063 OF 2008 August 05, 2010 KL