HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.1655 OF 2008 Date: 29.12.2009 Between: T.K.Kodandaram, …..Petitioner And: The Station House Officer, Marredpally P.S Rep. By the Public Prosecutor and others. …..Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.1655 of 2008 ORDER: This petition is filed by one of the accused under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing the F.I.R in Crime No.154 of 2003, dated 06.08.2003 of Maredpally Police Station relating to offences punishable under Sections 448 and 506 I.P.C. 2) On 06.08.2003, the Sub Inspector of Police, Maredpally Police Station registered the case on report given by the 11th respondent as G.P.A holder of the 12th respondent. It is alleged in the report that the defacto-complainant purchased property bearing No.3/A and 3/A-1, Anjanamma compound, Picket, Secunderabad and is enjoying the same and that the petitioner along with his associates K.Veera Reddy and others interfered with enjoyment of property and that thereupon the I Additional Chief Judge, Secunderabad granted interim injunction order in I.A. No.1504 of 2003 against the petitioner, K.Veera Reddy and others and that while so, on 05.08.2003, K.Veera Reddy along with his associates armed with sticks, criminally trespassed into that property, abused him and also threatened him with dire consequences to vacate the premisis. Even as per allegations in the report, the petitioner was not at the scene on 05.08.2003. It was K.Veera Reddy and his associates, who committed offence alleged. According to the respondents’ counsel, the petitioner is the person behind those persons. 3) As can be seen from contents of the petition, there is series of civil litigation involving the petitioner right from the year 1981 onwards. There appears to be some criminal cases also registered against the petitioner in respect of the same litigation. For purpose of this petition, the said previous civil and criminal litigation involving the petitioner may not be much relevant. It has to be seen in this petition whether F.I.R in Crime No.154 of 2003 of Maredpally Police Station is liable to be quashed on any ground. 4) The petitioner placing reliance on State of Punjab V. Sarwan Singh[1], of the Supreme Court and unreported decision dated 17.01.2008 in Criminal Petition No.3806 of 2005 of this Court contended that till today no charge sheet is filed by the police in this crime and that as per Section 468 Cr.P.C., the police are barred to file charge sheet in this crime as it would be barred by limitation. Section 448 I.P.C prescribes punishment for house trespass to an extent of one year or with fine, which may extend to Rs.1,000/- or with both. But, section 506 I.P.C has got two parts. As per part-I of Section 506 I.P.C, offence of criminal intimidation is punishable with imprisonment to the extent of two years or with fine or with both. Whereas part-II of Section 506 I.P.C prescribes punishment with imprisonment which may extend to seven years or with fine or with both, in case the threat is to cause death or grievous hurt or destruction of property by fire. In the case on hand, as per F.I.R, the accused were stated to have threatened the victim with dire consequences and went upon house of the victim with sticks. Therefore, the said allegations contained in F.I.R squarely attracted penal provision under Section 506(Part-II) I.P.C. There is no time limit prescribed under Section 468 Cr.P.C for completing investigation and for filing charge sheet in an offence involving Section 506(Part-II) I.P.C which is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to seven years. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the police are barred by limitation from filing charge sheet in this crime. 5) In the result, the petition is dismissed. _____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J December 29, 2009 KSH [1] AIR 1981 SUPREME COURT 1054