HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4527 of 2006 DATED 02.02.2010 Between: T.K.Kodandaram … Petitioner And The Station House Officer, Marredpally P.S And others. … Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4527 of 2006 ORDER: This petition is filed by the 1st accused under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing proceedings in C.C. No.1051/2004 on the file of X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad relating to offences punishable under Sections 448, 427, 323, 506/34 I.P.C. 2) The 10th respondent is the defacto-complainant in this case. It is alleged that on 30.05.2004 at 13.45 hours A-1 along with his henchmen A-2, A-3 and others forcibly trespassed into shop of the defacto-complainant, damaged kirana items therein, manhandled him and threatened him with dire consequences in case he did not vacate the house and that it was done with an intention to grab property of the defacto-complainant. 3) There is no dispute that there are certain property disputes between A-1 and the defacto-complainant and that there is history of previous civil and criminal litigation between them. From the previous history alone, one cannot jump to the conclusion that the case was foisted with oblique motive. Motive is a double edged weapon. Motive may play a role either in giving false report against the accused or in the accused committing the offence against the defacto-complainant. Irrespective of motive it has to be seen in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C whether taking allegations of the prosecution for granted as disclosed in the charge sheet, any case is prima facie made out for offences alleged against A-1. Truth or otherwise of the prosecution case has to be decided by the trial Court after recording evidence to be let in by both the parties. At this stage, this Court cannot be expected to go into disputed questions of fact relating to the offences proper. 4) It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that the alleged structure viz., kirana shop of the defacto-complainant does not exist at all on land. In F.I.R as well as in charge sheet, property in occupation of the defacto-complainant for his business being run under name and style of Guru Ganesh Kirana Stores, is in H.No.3A/1, Anjanamma Compound, Picket, Secunderabad. The petitioner filed proceedings of enquiry recorded on 22.05.1995 and 29.06.1995 by officers of the Cantonment Board, Secunderabad. In those proceedings, it was noted that H.No.3/A/1 is existing and it is in occupation of Kamala Bai. There is no dispute that Kamala Bai is no other than wife of the 10th respondent. It was further recorded in those proceedings that premises bearing No.3/A/1 were constructed unauthorisedly without sanction of the cantonment board. Further the petitioner also filed letter No.EB/3/A/PICKET/3498/1, dated 29.09.2005 of the Executive Officer, Cantonment Board, Secunderabad addressed to the 10th respondent and his wife Kamala Bai calling upon them to remove the structures in their occupation and threatening to demolish the same if they failed to do so. In that letter, it was stated that the 10th respondent and his wife erected tin sheet roofing on existing walls of demolished building and were running petty kirana shop and also residing therein in gross violation of orders of the High Court. Date of offence in this crime is 30.05.2004. From the above documents, it is evident that there was structure in the premises bearing H.No.3/A/1 in occupation of the 10th respondent and his family members and in which the 10th respondent was residing as well as running petty kirana business. Therefore, there is prima facie proof of existence of building at scene of the offence in which the offence is stated to have taken place. 5) It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that false case was foisted against A-1 who is a respectable person and who is a senior citizen. The question whether the case is true or false has to be decided by the trial Court after recording evidence to be let in by both the parties during trial; and the said question cannot be decided by this Court in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. I do not find any valid or legal reasons to quash proceedings pending in the lower Court. 6) In the result, the petition is dismissed. _____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J February 02, 2010 KSH