THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Petition No.1616 of 2009 Date:16th November, 2011 Between: 1.Chandrasekhar S/o.Johanaiah & Ors. ..... Petitioners AND 1) The State of A. P. rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad & Ors. .....Respondents *** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Petition No.1616 of 2009 ORDER: This Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the accused in C.C.No.591 of 2007 on the file of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal, Warangal District, to quash the proceeding therein. 2. The petitioners are employees in Warangal Municipal Corporation. The 2nd respondent herein filed a complaint before I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal, alleging that the petitioners herein along with others trespassed into the premises under his occupation on 05.10.2006 and demolished a portion of the premises. The learned Magistrate recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and took the complaint on file as C.C.No.591 of 2007. Hence, this Criminal Petition by the accused to quash the proceeding therein. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent/State and learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/complainant. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the 2nd respondent is owner of Plot No.41 situated at Old Grain Market, Laxmipuram, Girmajipet, Warangal, but he is claiming possession over plot No.42, which belongs to Municipality. A further submission has been made that the 2nd respondent filed Writ Petition complaining interference of the Municipal Corporation of Warangal and various proceedings that have been taken by him. Learned counsel by referring the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.307 of 1993 on the file of I Additional Subordinate Judge, Warangal, contending that the claim of the 2nd respondent is in respect of Plot No.42 and not plot No.41 and therefore, continuation of proceedings in C.C.No.591 of 2007 amounts to abuse of process of Court. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/Complainant submits that the 2nd respondent is specifically stated the incident that occurred on 05.10.2006 and the said fact also mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have gone through the complaint presented by the 2nd respondent before I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal and also the writ affidavit filed in support of W.P.No.20948 of 2006. The 2nd respondent has specifically stated in the complaint as well as in the writ affidavit that the corporation officials came to the premises under his occupation and demolished the constructions in the premises and tried to dispossess him. Such is the specific allegation against the petitioners, who are employees of the Warangal Municipal Corporation, it is not a fit case to quash the proceeding therein. 7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. 8. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners seeks a direction to the trial Court to dispose of the C.C. as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months. 9. In view of the submission of the learned counsel, the learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal, is directed to dispose of the C.C.No.591 of 2007 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:16th November, 2011. cs THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Petition No.1616 of 2009 Date:16th November, 2011