IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.P.No.7268 OF 2009 Between: Alavala Venkata Nageswara Rao …Petitioner A n d The State of A.P., Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.P.No.7268 OF 2009 ORDER: This criminal petition is ﬁled under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing further proceedings against the petitioner/accused in C.C.No.381 of 2009, on the ﬁle of the III-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The 2nd respondent herein ﬁled a private complaint against the petitioner in C.C.No.381 of 2009 alleging oﬀences under Sections 379 and 447 IPC. According to the complainant, he was a tenant of the premises belonging to the accused and was running Subhani Basha Engineering Works from 1985, but on account of losses, he closed the business in 2003 and could not pay the rents for two or three months and the accused got issued notice on 22.03.2003 for which the complainant gave reply. Thereafter, it is alleged that the accused locked the shop rooms and refused to receive the rent and has committed theft of machinery worth Rs.10 lakhs belonging to the complainant and which was lying in the shop room. There has been exchange of notices between the accused and the complainant. According to the petitioner/accused, the complainant has vacated the shop room on 04.01.2004 and took away all his belongings and delivered vacant possession to the petitioner/accused. 4. The question as to whether or not the tenant vacated and delivered vacant possession, having taken away his machinery, or the petitioner/accused committed theft of the machinery belonging to the complainant, is a disputed question of fact, which has to be considered only on evidence that may be adduced during the course of the trial. Having regard to the speciﬁc allegations made in the complaint pertaining to the alleged oﬀence of theft, which has to be considered only on evidence during the course of trial, it considered not a ﬁt case to invoke the inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C and quash further proceedings against the petitioner/accused in C.C.No.381 of 2009, on the ﬁle of the III-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. 5. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 01st December, 2011 Lrkm