HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.6793 of 2008 Date:08.04.2011 Between: Munipelli Balraj and others. ….Petitioners. And: T. Chandrakala and another …..Respondents. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.6793 of 2008 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of the proceedings pending in C.C.No.997 of 2007 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The 1st respondent herein has made a report to the Station House Officer of Sha Ali Banda Police Station and the same was reduced into writing and they registered the same in Crime No.170 of 2006. The 1st respondent herein has alleged therein that since the time of her forefathers, they are residing in H.No.18-5-426 near Pathar Ki Dargha, Laldarwaza, Hyderabad. From the last one year, A.1 Bala Raju and his sons are threatening her family members to vacate the said premises. On 19.12.2006 morning at about 9.30 hours, the Accused Bala Raju and his sons Machehendra, Jagadeesh and his son Anil Kumar all are trespassed into their house along with labourers and demolished wall of one room and bath room and when herself and her sister-in-law Chandrakala and her mother Amrutha Bai were tried to oppose them, they pushed them aside and went away by threatening with dire consequences, if they lodge any complaint. The police after investigation into the said complaint filed the charge sheet which is numbered as C.C.No.997 of 2007 pending on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner has pleaded that the dispute between the parties is a civil dispute and the husband of the 1st respondent has filed a suit O.S.No.4094 of 2005 on the file of the VIII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad against the petitioners 1 and 3 seeking perpetual injunction restraining them from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property which is the disputed property herein and the said suit was dismissed on 17.11.2006 after due enquiry holding that the plaintiff has failed to establish his possession and title over the said property. Therefore, as on the date of the alleged incident i.e., on 19.12.2006, the 1st respondent was not in possession of the said property in view of the finding given by the civil court. As the 1st respondent has no manner of title or possession over the said property in order to harass the petitioners, a false complaint is lodged against them. As such the same is liable to be quashed. The 1st respondent’s counsel, on the other hand, has pleaded that against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.4094 of 2005 by the VIII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, they have preferred an appeal and the appeal was allowed. Simply basing on the finding given in O.S.No.4094 of 2005, the petitioners cannot claim that the 1st respondent is not in possession of the said property and more over in the appeal, the said judgment and decree was set aside. The 1st respondent is in possession of the said property and the accused tried to dispossess them by trespassing into the property by demolishing wall of one room and bath room. He further pleaded that the averments made in the charge sheet has to be taken into consideration for the purpose of exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The husband of the 1st respondent has filed a suit O.S.No.4094 of 2005 on the file of VIII Junior Civil Judge, Hyderabad and the same was dismissed holding that the plaintiff has failed to prove his title and possession over the said property. Admittedly an appeal was filed and the same was allowed. In the present case, the allegations against the present petitioners are that on 19.12.2006, they trespassed into the house of the first respondent i.e., the disputed house and demolished the wall of one room and bath room and threatened them with dire consequences. Whether the petitioner was in possession of the disputed property as on the date of the alleged incident i.e., on 19.12.2006 has to be decided during the course of the trial and it cannot be decided simply basing on the finding given by a civil court at this stage. More over, in the charge sheet, it is specifically mentioned that the investigation made so far establishes that the complainant and her family members are residing in the house bearing No.18-5-426, near Pathar Ki Dargha, Laldarwaza, Hyderabad from her forefathers i.e., since 60 years and a civil dispute is running between the complainant and the accused relating to the possession of the said property and the civil suit was dismissed by the VIII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad as they failed to prove the title and possession over the said property. On 19.12.2006 morning at about 9.30 hours, the accused trespassed into the house of the complainant for taking possession of the said house without giving any prior intimation or without obtaining any eviction order from the competent court of law demolished the wall of one room and bath room and threatened them with dire consequences not to lodge any complaint against them. Hence, the charge sheet filed under Sections 448, 427 and 506 IPC. Thus, the averments made in the charge sheet prima facie show that the accused committed the offences under Sections 427, 448 and 506 IPC and the truth or otherwise has to be decided during the course of trial. As such the petitioners are not entitled for quashing of the proceedings pending against them in C.C.No.997 of 2007 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad at this stage. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. _____________________ P.DURGA PRASADJ. Date:08.04.2011. Gk. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.6793 of 2008 Date:08.04.2011 Gk.