IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.9871 of 2011 DATE: 14.10.2011 Between: Mallipudi Dhana Raju and another …… Petitioners And The State of A.P, rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P, Hyderabad and another …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.9871 of 2011 ORDER : The petitioners 1 and 2/A-1 and A-2 are son and mother. A-1 is stated to be an Advocate. It is alleged that on 16.05.2008 at about 7.00 P.M, A-1 to A-3 came to the house of the defacto-complainant, abused him in filthy language on issue of notices and that with a view to grab his house claiming right over the above property, A-2 and A-3 criminally trespassed into his house at the instigation of A-1 and threatened him and his family members. Even though it was A-2 and A-3 who trespassed and tried to grab the house property, A-1 was physically present with them at that time and he is alleged to have instigated A-2 and A-3 to do so. Further, there are allegations of abuses and threats against all the accused. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that there is civil disputes between the parties with regard to the properties left by Bommidi Ruthamma @ Chittemma and that civil suit in O.S. No.15 of 2008 is pending before Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram in that regard. The civil suit is only in respect of landed property and not the house property which is the subject matter herein. It is contended that the allegation against the petitioners 1 and 2 are not true and that since A-1 is an Advocate at Bhimavaram, criminal case was foisted to defame him. This is not a case of personal rivalry between the parties indulging in defaming an advocate. It is a case relating to claim of the property. If there is any claim for the house property in question which is in possession of the defacto-complainant, legal steps should have been taken by the concerned to file civil suit for possession of the said house. The alleged high handed act of trespass and grabbing the property in the presence of and at the instigation of the Advocate like A-1 should not have occurred. I am of the opinion that it is a matter for evidence which has to be decided after recording evidence of both the parties during trial by the Magistrate. I do not find any valid reasons to quash the proceedings in the criminal case. 2) Hence, the petition is dismissed. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J October 14, 2011 ksh