IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.1102 & 2556 of 2009 DATE:27.01.2011 CRIMINAL PETITION No.1102 of 2009 Between: M.Narasinga Rao @ Yadaiah and others …… Petitioners And The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by Public Prosecutor and another …..Respondents CRIMINAL PETITION No.2556 of 2009 Between: T.Balakrishna …… Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by Public Prosecutor and another …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.1102 & 2556 of 2009 COMMON ORDER : The petitioners in both the petitions are A-1 to A-14 in C.C. No.770 of 2006 on the file of X Metropolitan Magistrate (re- designated as X Chief Metropolitan Magistrate), Secunderabad and they are accused of offences punishable under Sections 447, 448, 406, 506, 324, 120-B/34 I.P.C. It is the result of private complaint filed by the 2nd respondent. Subject matter of dispute is flats constructed in the site which originally belonged to Mandala Narsamma. The site was given to A-1 who was Managing Director of M/s.Manasa Nirman Privated Limited for development under a development agreement. It is alleged that A-1 constructed ground plus 5 floors in the site consisting of plinth area of 7,788 in each floor. It is alleged that the complainant got 7 out of 11 flats towards the owner’s share of 35% of flats as per the development agreement and that due to differences between A-1 and the complainant, A-1 instigated A-2 to trespass into the complainant’s semi-finished flat Nos.303, 401, 403 and that A-1 in collusion with A-2 to A-14 criminally trespassed into the said flats by breaking the locks and doors by coming to the premises armed with crow bars etc. and threatening the complainant with dire consequences. 2) It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that development agreement was entered into not only by the 2nd respondent but also by A-2 and two others with the developer and that not only the complainant but also A-2 is entitled for share in the constructed flats and that there is civil dispute among the parties and that a civil suit in O.S. No.642 of 2006 was filed on the file of III Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad for injunction. In O.S. No.642 of 2006, the Civil Court passed interim injunction order restraining A-1, A-2 and another from alienating the schedule property therein or creating any encumbrance over the said property pending disposal of that suit. It is further pointed out that in O.S. No.1 of 2007 the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad dismissed injunction petition of the complainant in respect of flat No.306. It is stated that civil suits relating to subject matter of this private complaint are pending in civil Court. Mere pendency of civil suits between the parties in respect of these flats will not clothe the accused with any right to illegally trespass and intimidate and cause hurt to the complainant allegedly. Truth or otherwise of the allegations touching the offences in respect of which the complainant was filed and in respect of which the lower Court took cognizance, cannot be gone into in this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, as they are disputed questions of fact. It is for the lower Court to decide truth or otherwise of the occurrence and about rights of each of the claimants of the builder in the property and in several flats. 3) Suffise it to say in this petition that A-3 to A-14 are related to A-2 as sisters, brothers-in-law and nephews. It appears that they have no independent claim except through A-2. Therefore, I am of the opinion that their presence in the lower Court during trial of the criminal case may not be necessary. There is no dispute about their identity as all the parties are closely related to each other except A-1. 4) In the result, both the Criminal Petitions are dismissed. However, the lower Court shall not insist presence of A-3 to A-14 on every day of trial, except during their preliminary examination, examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C and delivery of judgment. The lower Court will dispose of the criminal case uninfluenced by any observations made in this order. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J January 27, 2011 ksh