IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION) FRIDAY, TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.599 of 2009 BETWEEN: Sampara David … PETITIONER(S) And State rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. … RESPONDENT(S) THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.599 of 2009 ORDER: The point that arises for determination in this Criminal Petition which is filed under Section 482 CrPC is whether the proceedings in C.C.No.409 of 2008 on the file of the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam, against petitioners should be quashed. 2. The point arises in the following circumstances. The 1st petitioner Sampara David was originally a tenant in the property of the second respondent herein. Petitioners 2 and 3 are the wife and daughter of the first petitioner, while the 4th petitioner is the mother of the 1st petitioner. It appears that they were living in the house property in question previously along with the 1st petitioner. 3. C.C.No.409 of 2008 arising out of Crime No.154 of 2008 of Gajuwaka Police Station is registered for the offences punishable under Section 448, 427 and 506 IPC on a report given by the second respondent to the above police who investigated the case and filed charge sheet. The case against them is that after the first petitioner vacated the house himself and the other petitioners came to the house again on 10.04.2008 at 09.30 p.m. and they assaulted the security guards and all of them scaled over the compound wall of the house and broke the lock of the house and brought their household articles from outside and kept them inside the house. The plea of the petitioners is that the above case is totally false one and they still continue to be in possession by virtue of an ex parte interim injunction granted in I.A.No.305 of 2008 in O.S.No.112 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge at Gajuwaka. It should be noted here that earlier there was rent control litigation between the first petitioner and the second respondent. The latter being the landlord was successful before the rent controller and also the appellate authority. The 1st petitioner carried the matter in Civil Revision Petition to this Court i.e. C.R.P.No.904 of 2008. The said CRP was disposed of on 04.04.2008 on the ground that it has become infructuous. A copy of the order passed in the said CRP has been placed before me and it reads that the learned counsel for the tenant i.e. the first petitioner herein who is the first accused in the criminal case represented before this Court that the CRP has become infructuous as he has been evicted from the house in question. The order in the CRP thus supports the contention of the second respondent that the first petitioner was evicted from the house property in question. 4. The record filed by the second respondent then shows that later on the second and fourth petitioners herein filed O.S.Nos.112 of 2008 i.e. the perpetual prohibitory injunction suit in the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam, and obtained an ex parte interim injunction on 08.04.2008 on the plea that they have possession of the house on some other ground. Thus this temporary injunction was obtained after the dismissal of the CRP. 5. It should be further noted that the 1st petitioner herein was inducted into possession of the premises as a tenant and it was on that premise the rent control litigation went on there being no objection to the jurisdiction of the rent controller. Thus, it is clear that when once the first petitioner admitted to be the tenant of the second respondent the estoppel of a tenant will always operate against him and the other petitioners who were claiming under him. In such circumstances, the ex parte interim injunction in the above suit, obtained by second and fourth petitioners may not operate but no pronouncement about it can be made finally by the Court before which the said suit is pending. It may however be noted that the statement recorded in the CRP No.904 of 2008 that the first petitioner has been evicted from the house property in question would show that himself and other petitioners were prima facie out of possession of it. Thus, the allegations in the present C.C. cannot be said to be baseless. In other words, it follows that there is no ground to quash the criminal proceedings. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. 6. Parting with the matter, it is made clear that it shall be open for the Courts trying C.C.No.409 of 2008 and O.S.No.112 of 2008 to dispose of the said matters (including any petition filed for discharge in C.C.No.409 of 2008) in accordance with law without being influenced in any manner by any of the observations made in this order. ______________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J 24th December, 2010 CVRK