IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION NO : 7105 of 2009 Between: 1 Sk. Mohd. Ali, S/o Sk. Toofiq Ali, R/o H.No.449/4/A, Patigadda Colony, Begumpet, Secunderabad. 2 P.Krishna Kumar, S/o Ramalingam, R/o H.No.16-2-162, Dilsuknagar, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 M.K.Laxman Rao, S/o M.K.Vishwanatham, R/o H.No.1-2-95 & 103, Kalasiguda, Secunderabad-500 003 2 The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., at Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Section ____ of Crl.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed therewith, the High Court will be pleased toto quash the proceedings in CC.No. 721 of 2008 on the file of the XI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad. The Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Mr.RAVI SHANKAR, Advocate for the Petitioner and of the Public Prosecutor, on behalf of the Respondent. The Court made the following: ORDER PSR, J. Crl.P.No. 7105 of 2009 O r d e r: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners; Sri C.M.R.Venlu, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 2. The allegations against the petitioners are under sections 447, 403, 426,379,506, 109 and 418 read with 34 IPC. It is the case of the de facto complainant that he has purchased and is in possession of certain piece of land and the petitioners herein, who are government servants, along with some others, have unauthorisedly demolished the structures existing in the said piece of land. It is the contention of the petitioners that they were discharging official functions; but there is no material to show that they were authorized to demolish the structures existing therein. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent that before demolition no notice was issued and the procedure as contemplated under the M.C.H Act was followed. In view of the nature of allegations, the question of obtaining permission under section 197 Cr.P.C., also may not arise. 3. Considering all the circumstances, this court is of the view that it is not a fit case, where the proceedings pending against the petitioners can be quashed. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. 4. However, the petitioners are permitted to take all the pleas that were taken in this petition, before the trial court. ________________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. December 15, 2009. *BVS