HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.6077 OF 2007 DATE:23-09-2010 BETWEEN Syed Hussain @ Mechanic Basha …Petitioner AND State of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad & Another. …Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.6077 OF 2007 ORDER: This petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.1 of 2007 pending on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Railway Kodur, wherein he is facing trial for the offences under Sections 447, 427 and 188 I.P.C. The contents of the charge sheet disclose that the second respondent-complainant lodged a complaint alleging that Ac.0.06 cents of vacant site in Sy.No.14/1, situated by the side of Sree Lakshmi Paradise Theatre, Kodur belongs to one A.Subbarayudu, the grandfather of L.W.2; that said A.Subbarayudu is survived by his wife Sheshamma and two sons i.e. A.Krishnamurthy and A. Bhaskar Rao; that during his life time, said Subbarayudu executed a registered will on 17.2.1999 in favour of his wife Sheshamma with regard to all his properties; that in turn, she executed a will in favour of the complainant and others. During the lifetime, A.Subbarayudu, his elder son i.e. A.Krishna Murhty, who is the father of L.W.2 and father-in-law of L.W.1 along with his brother A.Bhaskar Rao developed differences with their parents and as such said Sheshamma filed a civil suit in O.S.No.34 of 1983 and that during the pendency of the said suit, A.Krishna Murthy, who is the owner of 1/3rd share in the property, sold an extent of Ac.0.20 cents in Sy.No.14/1 in favour of Patnam Chandrasekhar and his wife Sankaramma by registered sale deed, dated 7.9.1992, from whom, one Shaik Apsarajahan, the wife of the accused purchased the said property under a registered sale deed. After such sale, the accused constructed a basement surrounding his compound, constructed a shed with the approval of Kodur Panchayat and was eking his livelihood by repairing lorries. He also obtained water tap connection to the said premises. Meanwhile, the vendor of accused by name P.Eswaraiah filed a suit in O.S.No.31 of 1995 against said A.Krishna Murthy, father of L.W.2 and after his death, he impleaded the legal heirs including L.W.2 as the parties. While so, on compromising the matter in O.S.No.34 of 1983, Sheshamma, grandmother of L.W.2 filed an execution petition being E.P.No.7 of 2001. Aggrieved by the orders passed in I.A.No.268 of 2001 in O.S.No.10 of 2001, which was filed for setting aside the judgment and decree in O.S.No.34 of 1983, the vendors i.e. P.Eswaraiah, P.Sankaramma and P.Chandrasekhar filed C.R.P.No.4304 of 2001. This Court allowed the said revision on 25.9.2010 with a direction for transfer of O.S.No.10 of 2001 from the Curt of Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet and to dispose of the same along with O.S.No.31 of 2005 and E.P.No.7 of 2001 with a further direction to the parties to maintain status quo. While so, it is alleged that in the absence of the complainant, the accused constructed a new shed on the existing basement, adjacent to the old shed in violation of the orders passed by this Court. Basing upon the said complaint, the petitioner was charged for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427 and 188 I.P.C. The complaint allegations and the charge sheet would go to show that the property in dispute is in possession of the petitioner- accused, in which event, the criminal trespass into the said property does not arise to attract the offence under Section 447 I.P.C. Equally, the petitioner cannot be proceeded for the offence under Section 427 namely, mischief by causing damage to the amount of Rs.50/-. The mischief as defined under Section 425 IPC reads that whoever causes destruction of any property, or any change in any property or in the situation thereof as destroys or diminishes its value or utility affecting injuries will amount to mischief. But, there is no such allegation in the complaint to attract the provisions under Section 427 IPC. Similarly, in the absence of any disobedience to the order duly promulgated by public servant, the petitioner-accused cannot be charged for the offence under Section 188 IPC. Therefore, allowing the impugned proceedings to continue against the petitioner for the above said offences is nothing but abuse of process of law and the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed as the present case squarely falls under the illustrations enumerated by the Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (AIR 1992 SC 604). In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings are quashed. _________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. SEPTEMBER 23, 2010 Tsr.