THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. SUNIL CHOWDARY CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.2801 & 8870 OF 2011 COMMON ORDER: 1 Criminal Petition No.2801 of 2011 is filed by accused No.1 and Criminal Petition No.8870 of 2011 is filed by accused Nos.2 and 3 in C.C.No.55 of 2011 on the file of XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District to quash the proceedings against them in the said case. 2 Since the point involved in both the petitions is one and the same, these two petitions are disposed of by this common order. 3 The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the first respondent foisted a false case against the petitioners. Per contra, the learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that this is not the stage to quash the proceedings. 4 A perusal of the record reveals that the first respondent submitted a complaint to the Station House Officer, Saroornagar, who in turn registered a case in Cr.No.830 of 2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 427 of IPC against the petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 to 3. After completion of investigation, the investigating officer laid charge sheet against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 447 and 427 of IPC. The learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, after satisfying himself prima facie that the material available on record is sufficient to proceed further, has taken cognizance of offences under Sections 447 and 427 of IPC against the petitioners and numbered the charge sheet as C.C.No.55 of 2011. 5 It is not in dispute that A.1 and A.2 and the first respondent are own brothers and sons of one late S. Satheyya. There is a dispute between the first respondent and the accused Nos.1 and 2 in respect of land to an extent of 1178 sq. yards in Sy.No.53/3 of Durga Nagar, Karmanghat. The accused Nos.1 and 2 and the first respondent got the said property from their father. It seems that there are some disputes between the petitioners and the first respondent in respect of the vacant site referred above. A perusal of the record further reveals that the first respondent herein lodged complaints on previous occasions against the petitioner Nos.1 and 2. 6 As per the allegations made in the charge sheet, on 09.11.2010 the first respondent saw the accused 1 and 2 changing the name board by encroaching into the site. During the course of investigation, the investigating officer has visited the spot on 01.01.2011 and conducted panchanama. As per the allegations made in the charge sheet, the petitioners herein intentionally and wilfully entered the site in dispute and changed the name plate with the help of a painter i.e. third accused herein. The allegations made in the charge sheet prima facie constitute the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioners / accused for the offences under Sections 447 and 427 of IPC. 7 The Court is not justified in embarking upon an enquiry to ascertain the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations made in the charge sheet at the pre-trail stage. At this point of time, the Court has to take into consideration whether the material available on record is prima facie sufficient to proceed further against the accused. The material placed before the Court is prima facie sufficient to proceed against the petitioners herein for the alleged offences. 8 I n Madhu Limaye Vs. State of Maharashtra[1] the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “At the outset the following principles may be noticed in relation to the exercise of inherent power of the High Court, which have been followed ordinarily and generally, almost invariably, barring a few exceptions. 1. That the power is not to be resorted to if there is a specific provision in the Code for the redress of the grievance of the aggrieved party; 2. That it should be exercised very sparingly to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice; 3. That it should not be exercised as against the express bar of law engrafted in any other provision of the Code.” 9 In Padal Venkata Rama Reddy @ Ramu Vs. Kovvuri Satyanarayana Reddy and others [2] the apex Court observed as follows: 13. It is well settled that the inherent powers under Section 482 can be exercised only when no other remedy is available to the litigant and not in a situation where a specific remedy is provided by the statute. It cannot be used if it is inconsistent with specific provisions provided under the Code (vide Kavita v. State {2000 Cri LJ 315 (Del)} and B.S. Joshi v . State of Haryana {(2003) 4 SCC 675}. If an effective alternative remedy is available, the High Court will not exercise its powers under this section, specially when the applicant may not have availed of that remedy. 10 Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also the principle enunciated in the cases cited supra, I am of the view that this is not a fit case to quash the proceedings at this stage. 11 Accordingly these two Criminal Petitions are dismissed. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ T. SUNIL CHOWDARY, J. Date: 14.08.2014 Kvsn [1] (1977) 4 SCC 551 [2] (2011) 12 SCC 437