THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.8101 of 2008 Dated:- 24th November, 2011 Between K.Sambasiva Rao and another …Petitioners AND Chilveri Srisailam and another …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.8101 of 2008 ORDER:- This criminal petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been ﬁled by the petitioners seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.88 of 2008 on the ﬁle of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sangareddy, Medak District. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the ﬁrst petitioner is the real owner of the land in dispute and that he has purchased the same from the second petitioner on 24.10.2005 under a registered sale deed and that he has been issued Pattadar Passbooks by the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer and that he is in peaceful possession of the disputed land. It is also his submission that the ﬁrst respondent/de facto complainant, who is claiming to be the legal oﬃcer of M/s.Kiran Krishna Real Estates and Constructions Pvt. Ltd., has no business to go to the disputed land and erect the name board. It is also his submission that there is a civil dispute pending between the parties and the complaint has been lodged to deter the petitioners and to coerce them to come to terms. 3. Per contra, Sri P.Veera Raju, learned counsel for the ﬁrst respondent/de facto complainant submits that there are no grounds to quash the proceedings against the petitioners. 4. The only point that arises for consideration is whether there are any grounds to quash the proceedings against the petitioners. 5. The truth or otherwise of the allegations cannot be gone into or the facts cannot be veriﬁed in this petition ﬁled under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is settled law that where in a case, on a plain reading of the complaint or the charge- sheet, though the allegations made therein are accepted as true, do not make out a case or does not reveal any oﬀences, then only this Court may exercise its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quash the proceedings 6. A perusal of the allegations in the complaint given by the ﬁrst respondent/de facto complainant and also the allegations made in the charge sheet reveals that one Dr.Raj Kumar, who treated the ﬁrst respondent/de facto complainant for the injuries said to have been caused by the petitioners, was examined. Similarly, whether the petitioners have got title to the property and whether they are in possession of the property etc., cannot be gone into in these proceedings. 7. In view of the above, I do not see any reason to quash the proceedings against the petitioners. 8. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed. At this stage, it is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner to dispense with the presence of the petitioners before the Court below. In the circumstances, the petitioners may approach the Court below seeking to dispense with their presence and the Court below may consider the same and may not insist for their presence on each and every date of appearance. However, the petitioners have to appear before the Court below as and when their presence is required by the Court below. _________________________ Justice B.Chandra Kumar 24th November, 2011 Bvv