IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.7515 of 2009 Between: C.P. Ravinder Reddy and another .. Petitioners AND State of Andhra Pradesh and another .. Respondents ORDER: Heard Sri T. K. Sridhar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri A. Ramesh, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor for the first respondent. No notice is being ordered to the second respondent as the matter is being disposed of at the stage of admission. The statutory investigating agency filed the charge sheet taken on file in C.C.No.653 of 2008 on the file of VII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hayathnagar, Ranga Reddy, in pursuance of the investigation conducted in Cr.No.291 of 2008 of Hayathnagar police station. The petitioners are alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 447 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code. In fact, after the registration of crime and when the matter is under investigation, the petitioners approached this court in Criminal Petition No.5071 of 2008 and this court ordered on 19- 08-2008 that the case depends upon documentary evidence, due to which, the investigation need not be stayed. The learned Judge directed the police to investigate the case and take appropriate action on the basis of the result of investigation specifically taking into consideration all the documents produced by the petitioners during the course of investigation. The petitioners complained now that they were not even asked to produce such evidence by the police during investigation and that they were not given an opportunity to establish their rights to the subject property during the investigation. However, the said claims of the petitioners involved disputed questions of fact and similarly, the effect of proceedings in O.S.No.1787 of 2008 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, and the further effect of the status quo order in I.A.No.1701 of 2008 in O.S.No.1787 of 2008 on the alleged criminal liability of the petitioners is also a matter to be appreciated and determined by the trial Court on the oral and documentary evidence to be produced by the parties before it. Though it is true that there is a reasonable basis for the claim of the petitioners about the involvement of a bonafide civil dispute in the entire episode, as any conclusions of fact cannot be arrived at in this summary enquiry under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, those questions of fact are better left open to be determined by the trial court on merits, more so, as the learned Judge deciding Criminal Petition No.5071 of 2008 found it fit not to quash the First Information Report, but to direct further investigation by the police and as the police after investigation reported to the court by the charge sheet that prima facie accused 1 to 3 appeared to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 427 IPC. It is always open to the petitioners to produce all such oral and documentary evidence, which they desire to produce, in proof of their innocence before the trial court, which the trial court will undoubtedly appreciate on merits. Therefore, the Criminal Petition is accordingly dismissed with the said observations. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 16-09-2009 Ksn