THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.973 of 2007 Dated: 1st February, 2010 Between: M.Anji Reddy …Petitioner AND The State rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad And another …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.973 of 2007 ORDER: This petition is filed by the accused under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing proceedings in C.C. No.1034/2006 on the file of II Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Lal Bahadur Nagar relating to offences punishable under Sections 447 and 427 I.P.C. 2) There is no dispute that the petitioner/accused has got 230 square yards of site in S.No.31 of Kothapet village and the area is presently called as Maruthi Nagar; and the defacto-complainant/2nd respondent is owning land in S.Nos.214 and 215 of the same village; and that both S.No.31 belonging to the accused and S.No.214 belonging to the defacto-complainant are adjacent to each other. The accused who is stated to be a police constable constructed his house in his site in S.No.31. Even though it is alleged that the accused constructed his house without obtaining municipal permission, the said fact has no relevance for the purpose of this case. It is alleged that there used to be barbed wire fencing for land covered by S.No.214 and that the accused high handedly removed the said barbed wire fencing and encroached into 105 square yards of site in S.No.214 and constructed a brick wall enclosing the encroached portion. After investigation, the police filed charge sheet in the lower Court for offence punishable under Sections 447 and 427 I.P.C. At this stage, it may not be noted that the accused representing his minor daughter Madhuri filed suit in O.S. No.3625/2005 in the Principal Junior Civil Judge Court at Lal Bahadur Nagar, Rangareddy District against the defacto-complainant for permanent injunction to the extent of his land of 230 square yards in S.No.31 and obtained interim injunction in I.A. No.6458/2005 therein against the defacto-complainant. This is not a case where the accused is stated to have encroached total site belonging to the defacto-complainant. It is only a boundary dispute between the parties. The said boundary dispute has to be resolved by the civil Court in appropriately framed suit. It is contended by the 2nd respondent’s counsel that in O.S. No.3625/2005, the civil Court may not be in a position to decide boundary dispute between the parties because it pertains to site of the accused in S.No.31 only and land of the defacto-complainant in S.No.214 is not subject matter therein. I do not accept this contention of the 2nd respondent. While deciding extent of site belonging to the accused and further deciding as to upto which measurement his site extends, the civil Court has to naturally go into the question of locating boarder between S.Nos.31 and 214. Perhaps for that reason previously this Court did some exercise in this petition directing both the parties to go for survey of lands in the locality to determine boundary between S.Nos.31 and 214. Even though the 2nd respondent took steps by paying necessary fees for surveying the locality, the mandal surveyor is stated to have submitted a report to the Tahsildar, Uppal Mandal stating that land in question is covered by bushes and teapons for the disputed survey numbers are not available. With the said excuse, the mandal surveyor evaded to perform his duty. Thus, as the matter now stands, no concrete result emerged out of the suggestion made by this Court in this petition. It is contended by the 2nd respondent’s counsel that Mandal Revenue Officer, Uppal Mandal, gave a report dated 19.06.2006 to the Sub Inspector of Police, Saroornagar Police Station to the affect that Mandal Revenue Inspector and Mandal Surveyor inspected S.Nos.214 and 215 and submitted their report stating that the accused had encroached into 105 Sq. yards in S.No.214. It is not known how Mandal Revenue Officer, Uppal Mandal sent such communication to the police when there were no teapons available for the land. In my opinion boundary dispute between the parties and boundary between S.Nos.31 and 214 have to be decided by the civil Court in the pending suit in O.S. No.3625/2005 after getting a survey knowing Advocate-Commissioner appointed to supervise survey of the locality by the Mandal Surveyor with the help of all available revenue records. Thus, in this matter there is bonafide dispute regarding title with regard to the alleged encroached land of 105 sq. yards. When there is a bonafide dispute regarding title which is pending in civil Court, prosecution of the accused for offences punishable under Section 447 and 427 I.P.C for trespass and mischief cannot lie. In the result, the petition is allowed quashing proceedings in C.C. No.1034/2006 of the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Lal Bahadur Nagar. ___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J February 01, 2010 KSH HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.973 of 2007 February 01, 2010 KSH