HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.1946 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioners allegedly committed oﬀences under Sections 147, 427, 448, 379, 504, 323 and 506 IPC read with Section 149 IPC. The 2nd respondent is the defacto-complainant. The case of the prosecution is that the 2nd respondent alleged that the petitioners entered with their site and committed trespass, beat him and committed the other oﬀences referred to above. The oﬀences allegedly occurred on 3.1.2010. The F.I.R was registered as Crime No.37 of 2010 on 9.2.2010. The petitioners claim that a false case was lodged against them and that the case deserves to be quashed as it is a case of civil dispute in nature. 2. The 1st petitioner is said to be a B.J.P leader at Warangal. The petitioners 2 to 4 are said to be his sons. One Kota Sumantha is the daughter of the 1st petitioner. There are cases between the 1st petitioner’s relatives and the 2nd respondent. O.S.No.1205 of 2009 is a suit laid by the wife of the 2nd respondent against the son-in- law and daughter of the 1st respondent. It also would appear that there are other civil suits pending between the parties, one of them being O.S.No.1174 of 2009. It was a case ﬁled by the 1st defendant in O.S.No.1205 of 2009 who is the son-in-law of the 1st petitioner against the plaintiﬀ therein who is the wife of the 2nd respondent. Thus, the parties are locked up in civil lis. 3. Sri B. Narayana Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the very disputes are civil in nature and the criminal case against the petitioners does not lie. Before answering this question, I may refer to another contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. 4. It is inter alia, contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there was a delay of 36 days in lodging the FIR and that the FIR is liable to be quashed on account of un-explaining delay. 5. Sri M. Venu Madhav, learned counsel representing the 2nd respondent pointed out that the 1st petitioner is an inﬂuential person at Warangal. There cannot be any doubt about the contention of the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent as it is admitted by the petitioners themselves. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent that although the wife of the 2nd respondent lodged a complaint with the Circle Inspector, Mills Police Station, Warangal on 3.1.2010 about the commission of the oﬀence, on account of the inﬂuence of the 1st petitioner, police did not take any action. He also drew my attention to the complaint of the wife of 2nd respondent lodged on 5.1.2010 with the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Warangal which was endorsed by the D.S.P., to the Inspector of Police, Mills Police Station, for taking necessary steps and that the police ultimately reluctantly issued FIR in Crime No.37 of 2010 on 9.2.2010. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that on 9.2.2010, the daughter of the 1st petitioner along with her husband and others lodged a private complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Warangal, against the 2nd respondent, the wife of the 2nd respondent and one Satyanarayana who is said to be the vendor of the property to the 2nd respondent. The complaint was referred to police and was ultimately registered as FIR in Crime No.36 of 2010. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the wife of the 2nd respondent lodged the complaint as a counter blast to FIR in Crime No.36 of 2010. 7. For F.I.R in Crime No.36 of 2010 and for F.I.R in Crime No.37 of 2010, the basic controversy is as to who is the owner of the property over which the sheds allegedly owned by the 2nd respondent and his wife stand. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the alleged sale of property by the 2nd respondent and his wife from Satyanarayana is bad on the ground that the Satayanarayana did not have the power to sell the property of Savender on the date of the same. Again this is a civil dispute. Prima facie, the very complaint in question discloses that the accused entered on to the site of the 2nd respondent and his wife. The petitioners are disputing the title of the 2nd respondent and his wife over this property. The question as to who is the owner of the property is pending adjudication before the civil courts. Patently, there are civil disputes which led to the institution of the present complaint. They have a complete civil ﬂavour. The answer to this dispute can be the resolution of the disputes before the civil court only, as to who owned the properties. These disputes between the 1st respondent on the one side and the 2nd respondent on the other side squarely are civil in nature. I agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the FIR in the circumstances is not maintainable. 8. This petition is accordingly, allowed and the proceedings in Crime No.37 of 2010 of Azamjahi Mills Colony Police Station, Warangal, are hereby quashed. __________________ K.G. SHANKAR,J Date:16.11.2011. Gk. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.1946 of 2010 Date:16.11.2011. Gk.