HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.8076 OF 2009 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/A1 to A3 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings in Calendar Case No.537 of 2008, pending on the file of the Court of I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, registered for offences punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 506 read with 34 I.P.C. 2. Whereas the petitioners are A1 to A3, the respondent No.2 is the de facto complainant in the Calendar Case. For the sake of convenience, I refer the parties as arrayed in the Calendar Case. 3. Briefly the prosecution version which is to be considered here is as follows: There is a site of A1 towards north of the Railway track in 1st line in Ramakrishnapuram. Adjacent to it on north, site of the father of the de facto complainant is situated. A1 gifted his site to his daughter. Even at the time of registration, there was a dispute between A1 and the father of the de facto complainant with regard to the measurements and boundaries of the site belonging to A1. In this connection, at the suggestion of A2 and A3, who are doing real estate business in the locality, the Taluk Surveyor measured and demarcated the sites physically as per the revenue records and fixed boundary stones. But the de facto complainant did not satisfy with it and is still disputing about the measurements of it. On 07.12.2007 at about 11:00 hours, the accused went and asked the de facto complainant to bring the documents relating to his site. He did not accede to produce the same saying that they were not available and asked as to what was the need to produce his documents. Then the accused behaved high handedly, having manhandled the de facto complainant and threatened him with dire consequences saying that they would see the end of him and his family members in the case of further interference with the site. Hence, the accused are liable for punishment for the alleged offence. 4. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners/A1 to A3 that the dispute between A1 to A3 and the de facto complainant in the matter is purely civil in nature and hence, the proceedings in the Calendar Case may be quashed. 5. The point for consideration is whether sufficient grounds are there to quash the proceedings as prayed for. 6. There is clear material to the effect that A1 to A3 involved in committing the said offence. So, necessary trial of the case has to be conducted. Without conducting the trial of the case, the complicity of A1 to A3 in the matter cannot be decided. 7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, till the commencement of trial, the presence of A1 to A3 before the trial Court is dispensed with. ________________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J December 26, 2011 MD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.8076 OF 2009 December 26, 2011 MD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDRABAD Dated: 26.12.2011 PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.8076 OF 2009 Between: Avutapalli Radhakrishna Rao and others ..... PETITIONERS AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and another ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: