IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICIATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH, AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.P.No.4233 OF 2010 Between:- Anukonda Surya Subramanyam and others …Petitioners A n d The State of A.P., Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.P.No.4233 OF 2010 ORDER: This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking to quash further proceedings in C.C.No.305 of 2007, on the file of the IV-Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kakinada. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitoners/A-1 to A-4 and the learned counsel for the second respondent-complainant. Perused the records. 3. The second respondent herein filed complaint against the petitioners/A-1 to A-4 alleging offences under Sections 323, 327, 507, 447, 420 read with Section 34 IPC and the same was taken cognizance in C.C.No.305 of 2007 by the learned Magistrate. The complainant is owner of the house bearing No.5-33. The complainant is in possession of the adjacent house belonging to A-1 on lease which commenced from January, 2001 on a rent of Rs.1,500/- per annum. The rent was to be enhanced by Rs.500/- after every five years. The lease period is 15 years. According to the complainant, due to heavy rains in July, 2006, part of the tiled roof of the leased premises collapsed. The complainant requested A-1 to get the repairs effected. On 07-10-2006, A-1, A-2 and A-4 tried to take forcible possession of the leased premises. The complainant resisted the same and filed O.S.No.1435 of 2006 before the II-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada for injunction and the said suit is pending. Even subsequently also, A-2 and A-3 tried to take forcible possession of the leased premises on 13-10-2006. They also attacked the complainant with sickles. The complainant gave report to the SHO, Karapa Police Station, but no action was taken by the police. The accused collusively created a gift deed dated 04-10-2006 as if A-1 gifted the property to A-4. In the said gift deed, A-1 included the personal property of the complainant also. Based on the said gift deed, all the accused tried to take forcible possession of the leasehold premises from the possession of the complainant. The complainant got issued a telegraphic notice to the Sub-Inspector of Police of Karapa Police Station on 18-12-2006. On 01-01-2007, the accused again tried to take forcible possession and beat the complainant and his wife. The complainant’s wife sustained grievous fracture injuries and was admitted in Government General Hospital. A case in Cr.No.2 of 2007 was also registered. A counter case in Cr.No.3 of 2007 was also registered against the complainant and his wife. 4. The petitioners/A-1 to A-4 allege that the complainant intended to purchase the property of A-1 but A-1 refused to sell the same and thereafter the complainant tried to trespass into the property which was resisted by A-1 to A-4. It is further alleged by the petitioners that on 31-10-2006 the complainant and his men unauthorisedly entered into the property of A-1 and removed the beams and rafters in two rooms and caused damage to the property, which was estimated by elders at more than Rs.70,000/- and, therefore, the SHO, Karapa registered Cr.No.3 of 2007 against the complainant and his wife. A-4 filed O.S.No.1703 of 2006 before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada against the complainant for recovery of damages of Rs.70,000/-. Both the suits O.S.No.1703 of 2006 filed by A-4 and O.S.No.1435 of 2006 filed by the complainant are pending. The petitioners/A-1 to A-4 further contend that the present complaint is covered by Cr.No.2 of 2007 registered against A-2 and A-3 and hence the same is not maintainable on the same allegations. 5. As seen from the contentions of both parties, there are certain disputes between them, both in the nature of civil and criminal. The complainant claims to be holding the property of A-1 under lease, which is disputed by A-1, who contends that the complainant intended to purchase the said property but A-1 refused to sell and, therefore, the complainant trespassed into the house of A- 1 and caused damage which was admitted to be around Rs.70,000/-. According to the petitioners, A-1 executed the gift deed in favour of A-4 in respect of his property, whereas the complainant alleges that the said gift executed is collusive and A-1 has included, in the said gift deed, part of complainant’s property also. The suit filed by the complainant for injunction in O.S.No.1435 of 2006 and the suit filed by A-4 for recovery of damages in a sum of Rs.70,000/- are both pending. Similarly, the report given by the complainant alleging offences under Section 324 IPC against A-2 and A-3 was registered as Cr.No.2 of 2007 and a counter case was also registered against the complainant in Cr.No.3 of 2007, on a report given by petitioners alleging mischief and damage to the property. In the present case, which was taken cognizance in C.C.No.305 of 2007, specific allegations are made by the complainant against the petitioners/A-1 to A-4 alleging offences under Sections 323, 327, 507, 447, 420 read with Section 34 IPC. 6. Going by the allegations made in the present complaint and the report, based on which Cr.No.2 of 2007 was registered, it cannot be said that the allegations are identical. The offences alleged in both the cases are also different, based on different set of facts and circumstances. The truth or otherwise of the allegations, however, can be considered only at the time of trial, but not at this stage. Simply because a case in Cr.No.2 of 2007 was already registered for the offence under Section 324 IPC for the alleged attack of complainant and his wife, it cannot be said that filing a complaint in C.C.No.305 of 2007 for totally different offences, based on different set of facts and circumstances, amounts to abuse of process of law. 7. Having regard to the fact that there are serious disputes between both the parties, both civil and criminal, it is only just and proper that law is allowed to take its due course in the cases filed against one another instead of thwarting the further proceedings in one of those cases at this stage by invoking the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. There are no valid or justifiable grounds for exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C in the present case. 8. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. _____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 8th November, 2010 Lrkm.