HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.681 OF 2008 DATE: 05-08-2011 BETWEEN: Pothina Apparao and two others. - - - Petitioners/ A-3, A-9 & A-10. AND The State of A.P., Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad, And another. - - - Respondents/ Complainant. This Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.681 OF 2008 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the Petitioners/A-3, A-9 and A- 10 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.154 of 2005, pending on the file of IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Bheemunipatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 2. Whereas the Petitioners are A-3, A-9 and A-10, the Respondent No. 2 herein is the De-facto Complainant in the Calender Case. 3. For the sake of convenience, I refer the parties as arrayed in the Calender Case. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the Accused and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the Respondents-State and perused the records. 5. The prosecution version is that the accused along with some others in this case trespassed into the site of the de-facto complainant on 26-05-2004 at about 10-00 a.m. claiming rights over the said site and threatened the watchman of the site and also attempted to beat the de-facto complainant. 6. It is the contention of learned counsel for the accused that there are no specific allegations against them in the corresponding charge sheet and the Petition filed by A-5 in Criminal Petition No.6110 of 2007 on the file of this Court was allowed discharging him from the Calender Case and therefore under similar circumstances, A-3, A-9 and A-10 are also entitled to be discharged from the case. 7. As per the prosecution record, all the accused trespassed into the land of the de-facto complainant namely Vijjana Annavaram and intimidated him and when he questioned about their attitude, they promulgated that they would kill him and his watchman, unless they were to vacate the site. Thus, there are specific allegations against the accused of trespassing into the land and involving in the alleged acts. So, unless necessary evidence is recorded, the real complicity of the accused cannot be decided. Simply because A-5 in this case was discharged from the Calender Case No.154 of 2005, the other accused does not deserve to be discharged automatically from the proceedings. For the foregoing reasons, there are no merits in the Criminal Petition and accordingly the Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, it is observed that the presence of the Accused Nos.3, 9 and 10 before the trial Court is dispensed with till the commencement of trial. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dated: 05-08-2011. Dsh. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY 232 CRIMINAL PETITION No.681 OF 2008 August, 05, 2011 DSH