IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.5944 of 2007 and 853 of 2008 Between: Pothina Venkata Rao and others … Petitioners And The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. By its Public Prosecutor and another … Respondent This Court made the following: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.5944 of 2007 and 853 of 2008 COMMON ORDER: - Since the subject matter in both the criminal petitions are one and the same, they are being heard together and are disposed of by this common order. The 2nd respondent/de-facto complainant lodged a complaint with the police on 20.06.2004, stating that he purchased a house site measuring 595 sq.yds., in the name of L.W.2 under registered sale deed and was in possession. When he fenced the land with barbed wires, some unknown persons removed the poles and took away the fencing and when he wanted to start the construction, A1, A2 and their associates-A3 to A11 approached L.Ws.1 and 2 for disposing of the property to them and when he refused to sell the same, the accused with an intention to grab the property, obstructed L.W.1 from construction work by threatening him with dire consequences and thereby L.W.1 filed O.S.No.1192 of 2003 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, in which he obtained status quo order. A1 also filed a suit for quashing the orders on the complaint lodged by L.W.1. When the matter stood thus, on 10.06.2004 accused trespassed into the land in violation of the status quo order and started laying gravel in the site duly constructing a compound wall and by erecting a gate in the said site in the night time. On the complaint lodged on 20.06.2004 by the de facto complainant, a case in crime No.189 of 2004 was registered by the police of Bhemunipatnam for the offences punishable under Sections. 341, 323, 506 r/w 34 IPC and after due investigation the police laid the charge sheet, which was taken on file in C.C.No.155 of 2005. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that when a civil suit was already pending, in which status quo order was obtained, if the petitioners/accused violated the said status quo order, the remedy of the complainant is only to file an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, but mere lodging of a criminal complaint for the alleged violation is an abuse of process. We see no merit in the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners when the complaint allegations clearly discloses that the accused trespassed into the site in spite of the injunction order, which also give raise to a criminal liability and has to be proceeded in accordance with law, and when the police after due investigation laid the charge sheet, it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings without giving an opportunity to the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. Accordingly, both the Criminal Petitions are dismissed. _______________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J 1st July 2010 lmv