IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4924 OF 2010 BETWEEN: Noorunnisa Begum W/o. late Mohammad Bin and others …. Petitioners AND State of Andhra Pradesh through the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad another. …. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4924 OF 2010 ORDER: The petitioners 1 to 7 / A-1 to A-7 are accused of offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 447, 506/34 IPC in C.C. No.78 of 2009 on the file of IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. 2. The second respondent / de facto complainant and A-1 are neighbours in Gaganmahal Road, Domalguda, Hydeabad. Even as per the petitioners’ case, civil suite is filed in Civil Court and A-1 is stated to have obtained temporary injunction against the second respondent pending that suit. It is also stated by the petitioners’ counsel that a petition is filed by A-1 before the Director of Survey and Land Records for demarcating boundary between the properties of herself and the second respondent. While so, on the basis of the incident which took place on 05-11-2008, the police booked FIR, investigated into the case and filed charge sheet in the lower Court. It is alleged that A-1 induced and gathered mob of her henchmen and indulged in unlawful activities on 05-11-2008 by forming themselves into unlawful assembly armed with lethal weapons and trespassed into the premisis bearing No.1-2-211/12/1/B, measuring 315 square yards and damaged compound wall, doors, windows and other household articles after restraining movements of the second respondent and other inmates of that house. 3. When civil dispute is pending and when measurement of land by Survey Department is pending, such unlawful activity of trespassing into the house with weapons and damaging the property should not have been undertaken. No doubt, truth or otherwise of the said allegations, is a question of fact and it has to be determined by the lower Court after trial during which both the parties will lead their respective oral and documentary evidence. This Court does not find any reason or grounds for interfering with trial of the case by the lower Court for decision on the question of fact. 4. Hence, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU, J June 14, 2010. KTL