IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION NO : 10061 of 2009 Between: 1 Mulinti Kullai Reddy S/o. Late Pulla Reddy R/o. Tapalakothuru Village, H/o. Katarukonda Village, Krishnagiri Mandal, Kurnool District. 2 Mulinti Madhu Sudhana Reddy S/o. Mulinti Kullai Reddy R/o. Tapalakothuru Village, H/o. Katarukonda Village, Krishnagiri Mandal, Kurnool District. 3 Mulinti Lokeswara Reddy S/o. Mulinti Kullai Reddy R/o. Tapalakothuru Village, H/o. Katarukonda Village, Krishnagiri Mandal, Kurnool District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 2 Gorantla Ramana Reddy S/o. Gorantla Sanka Reddy R/o. Thapalkothur Village, Krishnagiri Mandal, Kurnool District. .....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 call the records pertaining to the complaint in Crime No. 140 / 2009 on the file of Police Station, Krishnagiri, Kurnool District and same may be quashed by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Mr.NAGA NIYATHA, 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. 10061 of 2009 O r d e r: This criminal petition under section 482 Cr.P.C., is filed by the petitioners – Mulinti Kullai Reddy, Mulinti Madhusudhana Reddy and Mulinti Lokeswara Reddy, A-1 to A-3 respectively, seeking to quash the proceedings against them in Cr.No. 140 of 2009 of Krishnagiri Police Station, Kurnool District registered for the offences under sections 447, 427 and 379 read with 34 IPC. 2. Heard. 3. The allegation against the petitioners is of entering the land belonging to the de facto complainant, respondent No.1 herein, and cutting the standing crop therein. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that there is an injunction order in favour of the petitioners from the civil court in respect of the land in dispute. 5. The injunction order passed by the Civil Court shows that both the parties shall not enter the land and the sanding crop therein shall not be cut by any one. In case, the petitioners have not cut the crop and some one else has cut it, obviously petitioners would have complained to the Civil Court, which granted the order, or in the police station or elsewhere. On the other hand, the complaint is against the petitioners saying that they have cut the crop, which might be, prima facie, correct. 6. In the circumstances, it is not at all a fit case for staying the investigation, as such; the petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. Therefore, the criminal petition is dismissed at the admission stage, itself. However, it is directed that the petitioners shall not be arrested for a period of two weeks from today, during which time they may take steps for appropriate remedies, like approaching appropriate court for appropriate relief. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. December 4, 2009. *PV/BVS.