HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.4054 OF 2009 ORDER: This petition is filed to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.104 of 2009 of Police Station Pet-Basheerabad, Cyberabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 506, 290, 323 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’) on 18.04.2009. 2. The 2nd respondent is the complainant. He lodged a complaint on 18.04.2009 at about 5.00 P.M., alleging that on the same day at 2.30 P.M., the petitioner herein along with one Ramdas and others trespassed into their land and attacked them with hands and that himself, his grandson and daughter-in-law were injured in the incident. He had also mentioned that they have been living in their land in Sy.Nos.6, 31, 32 and 33 of Pet Basheerabad village to an extent of As.11.15 Gts., and they constructed a house bearing No.1-49 with the Municipal permission and were residing therein. It is also their case that they had constructed cattle shed and quarters for labourers and that they have been raising crops. It is also their case that though there is a status-quo order from the Hon’ble Supreme Court, disobeying the said orders, they attacked them with weapons. It is also alleged that the accused and others came in vehicles i.e., Tata Mobile bearing Nos.AP 28 Y 2140, AP 28 7232, Qualis bearing No.AP 28 BB 8337, Ford Fiesta bearing No.AP 09 BC 7657. During the course of investigation, scene of offence panchanama was conducted, Ford Fiesta car bearing No.AP 09 BC 7657 was seized the complainant and LWs.2 to 8 were examined. On the next day, the petitioner and other accused (A.1 to A.9) were apprehended and they were remanded to judicial custody. The other accused were absconding. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the statement of the complainant Samala Krishna Reddy submitted that the statement of the complainant reveals that among those persons, who , one person told the complainant that his name as Ramadas and that he is a power of attorney holder of P.Sreenivasa Verma (petitioner herein) and therefore, the presence of petitioner is not spoken by the complainant himself before the Police. Along with the petition, he has filed air tickets of SpiceJet showing that the petitioner purchased tickets from Hyderabad to Coimbatore on 17.04.2009 and returned to Hyderabad in the evening of 18.04.2009. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the Remand Report itself reveals that the police have examined as many as nine witnesses and their evidence revealed that the petitioner and others have criminally trespassed into the land of the complainant and tried to dispossess them and therefore, there is nothing to quash the proceedings. 5. The only point that arises for consideration is whether there are any grounds to quash the proceedings? 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the air tickets issued by SpiceJet. Of course, this air tickets prima facie go to show that the petitioner had undertaken a journey from Hyderabad to Coimbatore on 17.04.2009 and returned on 18.04.2009. But, as far as his presence is concerned, an accused has to take a specific plea in his defence and adduce evidence in support of his contention. Moreover, admittedly boarding passes have not been filed along with the petition. Therefore, by mere looking at those air tickets, it cannot be definitely said that the petitioner had gone to Coimbatore on 17.04.2009 and was not present at Hyderabad or at the scene of offence on 18.04.2009. As far as the statement of Samala Krishna Reddy recorded by the police is concerned, besides that, it appears that the police seems to have recorded the statements of several other witnesses i.e., LWs.2 to 10 and admittedly, the statements of those witnesses have not been filed along with this petition. Therefore, I am of the view that there is nothing on record to say at this stage that the allegations made in the First Information Report do not prima facie constitute any offence or making out a case against the petitioner herein. Therefore, without entering into the merits of the case, I am of the view that there are no grounds to quash the First Information Report. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ___________________________ JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR Date:29.09.2011 INL