THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJU CRIMINAL PETITION No.7426 of 2009 BETWEEEN: 1. Kota Chitti Babu, S/o.Gangaiah & 3 others. … Petitioners AND 1. The State of A.P. & another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.7426 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioners/A3 to A6 are accused of offences punishable under Sections 448 and 188 I.P.C. in CC.No.97 of 2001 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Paderu, Visakhapatnam District along with others. The accused are members of Jeevan and Aranyaka Organisation. When they applied for permission to run a modern hotel and bakery for diet of patients of C.H.C Centre, Paderu, the Project Director, ITDA, Paderu granted permission dated 04.04.2001 to them for a period of six months for establishing the same in old bus-stand building on rent of Rs.200/- per month. While so, class-IV employees union objected for the same on the ground that previously, the said building was allotted to them seven years back. Thereupon, the Project Director, ITDA, cancelled permission in favour of the accused organization. When the organisation approached this Court by way of W.P.No.7744 of 2001, questioning cancellation of permission, this Court in W.P.M.P.No.9859 of 2001 ordered status-quo. It is alleged that under the guise of status-quo orders, the accused trespassed into the said building and occupied the same and removed name board of IV class employees association and painted name board as ‘Hotel Jeevan’ and that the accused re-modelled the building by doing repairs and got electrical works done in violation of the conditions of this Court in the Writ Petition. 2. No doubt, in view of Section 195(1)(b)(i) Cr.P.C., neither the Police nor ITDA are competent to prosecute the accused for the offence under Section 188 I.P.C. It is only this Court or the authorized officer of this Court, who is competent to launch prosecution under Section 188 I.P.C. for violation of any orders passed by this Court. Therefore, taking cognizance of the offence under Section 188 I.P.C. by the lower Court, is incompetent. 3. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that the case has been pending for the last more than 10 years and that therefore the case should not be allowed to go on. Inspite of pendency of the case in the lower Court for the last 10 years, the accused/petitioners did not appear in that case. It is stated that after coming to know about the pendency of the case, the petitioners approached this Court with this petition. Therefore, the question of taking out this case from the file of the lower Court on the ground of prolonged pendency will not arise. 4. It is contended that neither the Police nor the Criminal Court can decide the disputed question of fact as to who was actually in possession of the building by the date of status-quo order and that it has to be decided by this Court in the Writ Petition. As per report of the Mandal Revenue Officer and investigation made by the Police, the accused trespassed into the building and occupied the same under the cover of the status-quo order and did all the above mentioned activity in the building. The said allegations make out the ingredients for the offence under Section 448 I.P.C. Truth or otherwise of the said facts is a matter which has to be decided by the trial Court having regard to the evidence to be let in by both the parties during trial of the case. This Court while exercising power under Section 482 I.P.C. cannot go into the said question of fact. 5. In the result, the Criminal Petition is partly allowed quashing proceedings in CC.No.97 of 2001 of the lower Court insofar as the offence punishable under Section 188 I.P.C. is concerned; and the Criminal Petition is partly dismissed in respect of the offence punishable under Section 448 I.P.C. is concerned. _____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Dated: 31.03.2011 ysk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJUL CRIMINAL PETITION No.7426 of 2009 DATED: 31.03.2011 ysk