THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.2379 AND 2380 OF 2010 COMMON ORDER The petitioners in these two criminal revision cases are A1 to A3 in C.C.No.372 of 2007 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kavali. Subject matter of dispute between the parties is house site. A2 and A3 are sons of A1. Previously, A1 and his wife filed O.S.No.113 of 2007 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kavali against three defendants including the de facto complainant Leelavathamma and it is pending. Originally, the suit was filed for perpetual injunction and subsequently, it was amended for the reliefs of declaration of title and for vacant possession in case they were found to be out of possession. While so, the offence took place on 21-3-2007. It is alleged that A1 to A3 brought hired elements A4 to A11 in cars and tresspassed into the disputed site and demolished the house which was under construction and also manhandled the de facto complainant and others. The case was registered for offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 448, 352, 427/149 IPC against A1 to A11 and it was investigated into and charge sheet was filed against all of them. A1 to A3 filed petitions before the lower Court for their discharge under Section 245 Cr.P.C. The Lower Court dismissed both the petitions. It is contended by the leaned senior counsel appearing for the revision petitioners that there is bona fide dispute between the parties for title to the disputed site and therefore, the question of committing offences punishable under Sections 448, 427 IPC may not arise at all as there is no likelihood of existence of guilty mind in them for those offences. But, the civil dispute between the parties with regard to ownership of the site in question has to be judged with reference to bodily offence alleged against them under Section 352 IPC and also the alleged presence of A4 to A11 at the scene of offence along with A1 to A3 at the time of offence. Therefore, it cannot be said at this stage that there is only a bona fide dispute regarding title to the site and that there is no element of crime in this case. The lower Court rightly negatived the plea of discharge of A1 to A3. I do not find any infirmity in the orders passed by the lower Court. In the result, both the criminal revision cases are dismissed. The lower Court is directed to dispose of the main case without reference to reasoning contained in this order. _________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J Rkk Dated: 27-12-2010