THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.7946 of 2009 DATED:25.09.2009 Between: Yadaiah Goud and others .. Petitioners And The State of Andhra Pradesh, through Station House Officer, P.S.Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District, rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and another .. Respondents ORDER: Heard Sri J.Ashvini Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri A.Ramesh, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor for the first respondent. No notice is being ordered to the second respondent, as the order being passed herein at the stage of admission does not in any way touch upon the rights and interests of the second respondent. The petitioners are facing prosecution in C.C.No.529 of 2006 in a private complaint filed by the second respondent in respect of the alleged offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 447 and 326 read with Sections 149 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code concerning an incident on 07.11.2005 at the subject land of Acs.4.00 in Survey No.165/1 of Mailardevpally. The complaint itself refers to the investigation done by the police in Cr.No.765 of 2005 in C.C.No.208 of 2006 pending on the file of the same Court and the grievance of the complainant is that the investigation was not properly done and accused were not completely prosecuted for all the offences involved in the incident. While the truth or otherwise of such allegations is beyond the scope of the present enquiry, similarly the claims of innocence of the petitioners are also about issues of fact on which no conclusive determination can be made in this summary enquiry. The petitioners are referring to the dispute in L.G.C.No.76 of 2006 and are trying to rely on the civil ramifications of the differences between the parties, but as the allegations of the second respondent are not only about an offence under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code but also about an alleged offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, nothing civil can be said to be involved in such an offence against human body. While the origin of the disputes may be due to the disputes about the land, the incident proper cannot ex facie be said to be devoid of ingredients attracting criminal law if the allegations are true. While so, if a case taken on file on a police report and another case taken on file on a private complaint are pending before the same Court in respect of the same incident, involving the same parties, the procedure to be followed is prescribed by Section 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the trial Court has to be requested to follow the same in respect of these two cases. While quashing of the proceedings themselves does not arise under the circumstances, Sri J.Ashvini Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners brought to notice that there was a compromise in L.G.C.No.76 of 2006 on 28.03.2008, subsequent to the filing of the complaint, dated 24.04.2006 and he is hopeful that that these proceedings are also likely to be compromised and compounded. It is always open to the parties to effect such compromise and compound the offences and seek appropriate reliefs either from the trial Court under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, concerning which no advance directions can be given herein. Therefore, the Court of VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District, is directed to try and determine C.C.No.208 of 2006 and C.C.No.529 of 2006 on its file on merits in accordance with law duly complying with the procedure prescribed under Section 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure during the further proceedings in the cases. The Criminal Petition is ordered accordingly. ___________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J 25th September 2009 KH