THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY Crl.P.No.633/2008 Dt,17-6-2010 Pothina Apparao and another ..Petitioners V. 1.The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Pubic Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another. ..Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY Crl.P.No.633/2008 ORAL ORDER On the complaint lodged by the second respondent herein, namely, Mandal Revenue Officer, Chinagadili Mandal, Visakhapatnam alleging that on 15-7-2004 at about 15-30 hours Potti Ramana and Nagothi Chinna Rao trespassed into the road and encroached one feet of road margin towards east and one feet of road margin towards west out of 16 feet road, which was left for the thorough fare of the public and encroached part of the sites belonging to L.Ws.4 and 5 and damaged the public road and constructed a wall and thereby caused much inconvenience to the public who are residing in the vicinity of the layout, the police of Bheemunipatnam Police Station registered a case in Cr.No.215/2004 under sections 447, 341, 427 and 506 r/w 34 IPC. After due investigation, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Bheemunipatnam laid the charge sheet against 11 accused stating the investigation revealed that 11 accused have trespassed into the said site and encroached one feet of road margin towards east and one feet of road margin towards west out of 16 feet road which was left for the thorough fare of the public and encroached part of the sites belonging to L.Ws.4 and 5 and damaged the public road and constructed a wall. During the course of investigation, L.W.11 examined the scene on 15-7-2004 in the presence of L.Ws.8 and 9 and got drafted an observation-cum-mediators report and recorded Sec.162 Cr.P.C., statements of L.Ws.1 to 7 duly examining them section 161(3) Cr.P.C., and arrested A-1, A-7 to A-9 on 15-11-2004 and sent them for judicial remand. He arrested A-2 on 20-1-2005 and sent him for remand. In spite of sustainable enquiries, they did not apprehend the absconding accused A-3 to A-6, A-10 and A-11. He requested the court to issue NBWs against them On issuing NBWs, A-3 and A-4 filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., contending that when there are no specific allegations against them, taking cognizance of the offence is not proper as they were not shown in the First Information Report, and the proceedings initiated against them are liable to be quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioners by placing reliance on the orders passed by this court in Crl.P.No.5834/2007 dt. 3-12-2007, whereunder this court quashed the proceedings initiated against A-7, contended that since the names of A-3 and A-4 have not been referred to in First Information Report and no specific overt acts have been attributed against them, the proceedings initiated against them are liable to be quashed as in the case of A-7 in Crl.P.No.5834/2007. This court quashed the proceedings against A-7 stating that his name has not been referred to in the First Information Report nor any specific overt act is attributed against A-7 nor he was involved in any act attracting the ingredients of the offences alleged. Whether petitionrers/A-3 and A-4 are involved with common intention along with A-1 and A-2 is a matter to be gone into after scanning the evidence adduced by the prosecution. Prima facie, the statements of L.Ws.1 to 9 recorded under Section 162 Cr.P.C., would clearly show the involvement of the petitioners/A-3 and A-4 in trespassing into the land. Once the petitioners are implicated with the aid of Sec. 34 IPC, the matter can be enquired into, but the same cannot be scuttled without giving an opportunity to the prosecution. Further, the petitioners are absconding avoiding their arrest. In view of the same, this court cannot entertain the inherent jurisdiction of this court to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners/A-3 and A-4. The Criminal Petition is accordingly dismissed. ______________ A.GOPAL REDDY,J Dt.17-6-2010 kmr