IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No.8054 OF 2009 Between: Akula Venkateswarlu & another ..... Petitioners/A1 & A2 AND 1. The Sate of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. 2. Guduru Krishna Varma ..... Respondents The Court made the following: ORDER: This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed by the petitioners/A1 and A2 to quash the proceedings in Crime No.115 of 2009, of No.I Town Police Station, Nellore District, registered for the offences under Sections 452 and 324 read with Section 34 IPC. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of the present criminal petition may be stated as follows: It is alleged that the Respondent No.2/de facto complainant himself telephoned to A1 about the money that was due to him from A1 and that A1 alleged to have told him that he was coming to the photo studio within half-an-hour and when A1 and his brother came to the photo studio, A1 and the Respondent No.2/ de facto complainant had an argument and at that time, A1 took out a wooden stool and beat the Respondent No.2/ de facto complainant causing bleeding injury. On the complaint lodged by Respondent No.2/de facto complainant, the police registered the case. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/A1 and A2 contended that there was no preparation to commit house-trespass and therefore, prima facie, the offence under Section 452 IPC does not attract; that the Respondent No.2/ de facto complainant himself called A1 to the photo studio and therefore, prima facie, the offence under Section 452 IPC has not made out; that similarly, there was no common intention to commit an offence. Hence, he prays to quash the impugned proceedings. 4. There cannot be any dispute that inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, can be exercised by this Court when there is an abuse of process of Court, or to secure the ends of justice, or to give effect to the order of this Court. It is equally well settled that if the allegations of the complaint do not make out a prima facie case for the offence under Section 452 read with Section 34 IPC, then only the question of quashing of the complaint would arise. In view of the fact that the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, are extraordinary jurisdiction in nature, the same have to be exercised carefully and with great circumspection. 5. The ingredients of the offence under Section 452 IPC read thus: “whoever commits house-trespass, having made preparation for causing hurt to any person or for assaulting any person, or for wrongfully restraining any person, or for putting any person in fear of hurt, or of assault, or of wrongful restraint, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.” The word ‘trespass’ is defined under Section 442 IPC which reads thus: “whoever commits criminal trespass by entering into or remaining in any building, tent or vessel used as a human dwelling or any building used as a place for worship, or as a place for the custody of property, is said to commit “house-trespass”.” Having made preparation to commit house-trespass is an offence punishable under Section 452 IPC. 6. Though it is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/A1 and A2 that A1 was called to the photo studio through phone by the Respondent No.2/de facto complainant, but there is no such allegation in the complaint that A1 was called to the photo studio. 7. The allegation in the complaint would go to show that on 13.09.2009 at about 5.00 p.m., when the Respondent No.2/ de facto complainant telephoned to A1 with regard to payment of certain money, A1 stated that he would come to the photo studio and talk to him, and half-an-hour thereafter, petitioners/A1 and A2 came to the photo studio and that an altercation was ensued. Whether the petitioners/A1 and A2 have prepared to commit house-trespass or not, cannot be decided at this stage because it is a matter of investigation to be conducted by the police. When the allegations in the complaint made out a prima facie cognizable offence, then it is the statutory duty of the police to conduct investigation, and the same cannot be curtailed. Therefore, the petitioners/A1 and A2 went to the photo studio and had an altercation with the Respondent No.2/de facto complainant and that A1 beat the Respondent No.2/de facto complainant with a wooden stool and that A2 attacked the wife of the Respondent No.2/de facto complainant. Therefore, prima facie, the allegations in the complaint made out an offence punishable under Section 452 read with Section 34 IPC. Hence, it is not a fit case to quash the impugned proceedings. 8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ______________ (K.C.BHANU, J) Dated: 5th October, 2009. KL