THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4964 OF 2010 ORDER: The petitioner Nos.1 and 2/A1 and A2, are accused of offences punishable under Sections 324, 420, 447, 120B IPC. 2. The private complaint filed by the 2nd respondent-de facto complainant was referred to the police by the Magistrate for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that the penal sections of law for which the F.I.R. was registered, are not applicable to the allegations in the complaint. In the complaint, the 2nd respondent did not invoke Section 324 IPC at all. But the police incorporated Section 324 IPC in the registered F.I.R. According to the allegations in the complaint, the accused along with their men came to the disputed land with dangerous weapons and tried to trespass into the land belonging to the complainant and two others without any right and threatened the complainant and others with dire consequences. Though intention of the accused was stated to be to cause grievous hurt to the complainant and others, there is no allegation of any of the accused causing grievous hurt to the complainant and others. The allegation is only with regard to the threat of causing grievous hurt. The appropriate provision of law applicable for the said allegation is Section 506 IPC and not Section 324 IPC. 3. It is further contended by the petitioner’s counsel that for the same land, the accused have title and that their title deed is earlier to title deed of the complainant. Admittedly, both the parties filed suits in civil courts against each other for the disputed land. The allegation in the complaint against the accused is that A2 collusively created a sale deed, dated 21.10.2009, in favour of A1 and that it is a fraudulent transaction. Though the police have no jurisdiction to decide the validity of the title deeds, at the same time it is for the police to investigate whether the title deed in favour of the accused is a collusive one or fraudulent one created for the purpose of making wrongful gain by A1 and A2. The police will also take note of their respective suits filed by both the parties against the other by making investigation of the case relating to the offence under Section 420 IPC. 4. After investigation it is for the police to decide which are the appropriate sections of law applicable to this case and file final report accordingly. Simply because one penal section of law is invoked in F.I.R, they need not adhere to the same even in the final report also. Having regard to all the above discussion, I am of the opinion that this is not a case for quashing of F.I.R. and preventing investigation at its threshold. 5. Subject to the above observations, the petition is dismissed. __________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J October 21, 2011. LMV THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4964 OF 2010 21.10.2011 LMV