HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.6208 of 2007 Dated: 21-10-2010 Between: Gade Appala Narayana Rao …Petitioner AND State of A.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad & Another Respondents. This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.6208 of 2007 ORDER: This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is filed to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner-A.8 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 447, 506, 120-B r/w 149 IPC in C.C.No.897 of 2005 pending on the file of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Visakhapatnam. As per the contents of the charge sheet, the complainant purchased the site in an extent of 1732 sq.yds. out of total extent of Ac.5.00 in Sy.No.59/7B from Peethala Musalaiah and others on 18.4.1969 vide registered document No.1280/69 at Maddilapalem and that he constructed a compound wall at his site. While so, A.1 approached A.2, A.3 and A.5, who are involved in the real estate business, and introduced herself stating that she is the absolute owner of site in RS.No.59/9 adjacent to NH-5 near Automotive manufacturers, Maddilapalem, which in fact, is in possession of the complainant. Then A.1 to A.5 conspired with each other, they hatched a plan to get removal of the permanent constructions in the said site in order to take possession of the said site in their control. A.8 and A.9 are close associates of A.1. Thus A.1 to A.23 with a common intention to grab the site of the complainant, formed themselves into unlawful assembly and having made preparation for causing hurt, they trespassed into the site of the complainant with equipment and demolished the compound wall to a level and caused loss to the complainant and that they also threatened the complainant with dire consequences. It is to be seen that out of the very same incident, similar complaints were filed by the individual complainants against the petitioner and others in C.C.Nos.894, 895, 896 and 898 of 2005 and the same were investigated into by the investigating agency. The petitioner herein filed Crl.P.Nos.6179, 6181, 6185 and 6186 of 2007 to quash the proceedings in C.C.Nos.898, 896, 895 and 894 of 2005 respectively. This Court by common order, dated 17.6.2009 allowed the Criminal Petitions quashing the proceedings in the said C.Cs. against the petitioner herein with the following observations: “………….The trial Court while evaluating the involvement of any person in the alleged offences can only go by the material collected during investigation in terms of the Code of Criminal Procedure and it is well settled that the contents of the charge-sheet have no probative value in that regard. The possibility of any witness coming to the witness box and speaking about the involvement of the petitioner distinctly and specifically is too remote and too weak a link to be reliable and acceptable in the absence of the statement of any witness to that effect during the investigation and on the material available, it should, therefore, be only concluded that right from the first information report up to the filing of the charge-sheet, there was absolutely no material identifying the involvement of the petitioner in these petitions in the alleged offences and there appeared no factual or other basis for the mention in the charge-sheet about his involvement as a part of accused 6 to 23 who were claimed to have been engaged by other accused. Under such circumstances, the claims of the petitioner in all the four petitions have to be upheld.” Following the common order, dated 17.6.2009 made in Crl.P.No.6179 of 2007 and batch and for the reasons mentioned therein, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.897 of 2005 on the file of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Visakhapatnam are quashed in respect of the petitioner only. ________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. OCTOBER 21, 2010 Tsr.