HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.2989 of 2000 Dated: 22-07-2010 Between: P.Krishna Reddy …Petitioner AND The State of A.P., Rep. by its S.H.O., Neradmut Police Station, Ranga Reddy District & Others. Respondents. This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.2989 of 2000 ORDER: Petitioner, a practicing advocate, who is arrayed as A.2 in C.C.No.572 of 1996 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, East & North, Saroornagar, R.R.District, filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in the said C.C. initiated against him for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 325, 506 r/w Section 34 I.P.C. Though the second respondent received the notice on 13.7.2010 he has not chosen to put up appearance opposing the petition. The complainant made a complaint to the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, East and North at Kothapet, R.R.District under Section 200 Cr.P.C. alleging that the father of the complainant gifted the plot bearing No.126 in Sy.No.322, situated at Deendayalnagar, Neradmut, Malkajgiri Mandal R.R.District to A.3, who is the maternal aunt’s daughter of the complainant under a registered gift deed vide document No.7825/89, dated 22.4.1989. The grandfather of A.3, who was her guardian at the relevant time, accepted the gift. Though there was a gift deed, the possession of the property was not handed over to A.3 or her guardian. While so, the father of the complainant with his own funds constructed a house in the said property in the year 1989, and had given the said premises on rent to one Keshav Prasad and one Anjaneyulu and used to collect the rents at Rs.500/- each. The marriage of A.3 was performed by the father of the complainant by spending a sum of Rs.1.00 lakh. After performing the marriage, the complainant gave a notice of revocation of the gift settlement and had revoked the gift of the schedule mentioned property and the deed of revocation of the settlement was executed by virtue of the registered deed bearing No.2686 of 1993, dated 22.6.1993 duly giving notice to the guardian of A.3. While so, on 17.9.1995, A.1 along with A.2 had broke open the lock of the house, took possession of the premises which was in occupation of Keshav Prasad-tenant. The said Keshav Prasad lodged a complaint to the Police Station, Neradmutt, but no action was initiated. The father of the complainant gaining the knowledge of the same re-took the possession of the said house as the stay of the accused was illegal. While so, A.1 to A.5 with some anti-social elements came to the complainant on 1.10.1995 at about 9.00 p.m., started banging the doors of the house resulting in breakage of the bolts of the door. Then the complainant along with L.Ws.1 to 3 rushed to the main door, which was broke open by all the accused, that all the accused pounced upon the complainant and L.Ws.1 to 3, that A.2 beat L.W.1 and threw him out of the house, that A.2 dragged L.W.3 out of the house by catching hold of her heir. A.1 to A.3 prevented L.Ws.1 and 2 from entering into the house, that A.3 used unparliamentary language against the complainant and L.Ws.1 to 3, that A.3 threw the bedding and the cot out of the house, and that all the accused beat the complainant mercilessly. Thus A.1 to A.5 committed the offence of unlawful assembly, house trespass and caused hurt to the complainant and outraged the modesty of the women with the common intention and as such they are liable to be punished for the offences as alleged. The learned Magistrate forwarded the complaint to the Police of Neradmet Police Station, on which basis, the police registered a case in Crime No.63 of 1996 and after due investigation, police filed a report stating that A.1 to A.4 were found to have committed the offence and the said report was taken on file in C.C.No.572 of 1996. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the material available on record. A.3 filed a suit in O.S.No.911 of 1995 before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Hyderabad, East and North, R.R.District for grant of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants i.e. the complainant, his father-G.Krishna Reddy, L.W.3 and one Narayan Reddy. The said suit was transferred to the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Hyderabad, West and South, R.R.District and re-numbered as O.S.No.565 of 2000. The civil Court after trial decreed the suit of the plaintiff with a positive finding that no incident had happened on 17.9.1995 or on 1.10.1995 as alleged in the F.I.R. marked as Ex.A.8 which was registered by the police on a reference of private complaint by the Magistrate. It was further held that since there is no reliable evidence about the alleged incident and the evidence of the plaintiff- A.3 is convincing about her possession over the suit schedule property, the civil Court was of the opinion that the plaintiff-A.3 is not a trespasser and she has been residing in the suit house as rightful owner from the date of construction of the house. The said findings have been confirmed in the appeal preferred by the complainant herein and others in A.S.No.110 of 2003 by III Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar vide judgment, dated 20.7.2005. The present petitioner had appeared for A.3 in the suit filed by her in O.S.No.565 of 2000 along with his senior as an advocate. Therefore, it appears that the petitioner has been unnecessarily added as an accused to take vengeance against him for his successfully fighting the suit of A.3 and also defending A.3 in the appeal in A.S.No.110 of 2003. In that view of the matter, the initiation of the impugned proceedings against the petitioner is nothing but an abuse of process of law and the same cannot be allowed to continue. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.572 of 1996 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, East & North, Saroornagar, R.R.District are quashed as against the petitioner. ________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. JULY 22, 2010 Tsr.