THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.4619 OF 2009 Dated 13-10-2011 Between: Mohd.Ather Altaf. ..Petitioner. And: State of A.P., through Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another. … Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.4619 OF 2009 ORDER: This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.10 of 2009 of Golconda Police Station, Hyderabad for the offences under Sections 447 and 379 I.P.C. Petitioner herein is the accused. 2nd respondent herein is the defaco complainant. The facts of the case in brief are as follows: 2nd respondent-defacto complainant lodged a complaint with the Golconda Police Station, Hyderabad on 12.1.2009 alleging that his brother Mohd. Hyder Ali Khan has purchased 440 square yards of land in S.Nos.457, 458, 459 along with a small room bearing house No.9-4- 135/A/69 situated at Tolichowki, Ragava Colony, Hyderabad on 28-8-2008 under an agreement of sale- cum- General Power of Attorney. It is his case that his brother has been enjoying the property, paying house tax and also got electricity and water connection. It is his further case that when they intended to construct a house and dumped construction material i.e., 1000 hallow bricks on 10-1-2009 and on the next day i.e.., on 11-1- 2009, he noticed that the bricks and electricity meter wires were stolen. Then he lodged a complaint to the police and basing on the same, the police registered a case in crime No.10 of 2009 for the offence under Sections 447 and 379 I.P.C. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record. It has to be seen that F.I.R. has been registered against the unknown offender. The petitioner’s case is that he filed a civil suit in O.S.No.442 of 2009 against the 2nd respondent-defacto complainant and his brother and also sought ad interim injunction order in I.A.No.37 of 2009 and the learned 7th Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, on appreciation of rival contentions came to a conclusion that the petitioner has got prima facie case and the brother of the 2nd respondent was not in possession of the property. Accordingly, the said learned Junior Civil Judge, granted interim injunction order. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the matter is ceased by the civil Court, the Police cannot decide the rights of the parties and say that the 2nd respondent complainant has been in possession of the property. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the civil suit is still pending and that the disputed facts cannot be decided in these proceedings. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the F.I.R. is liable to quashed or not. A perusal of the record goes to show that the F.I.R. was lodged on 12.1.2009 against an unknown offender and that the 2nd respondent claimed that his brother purchased the property and has been in possession of the property and that the bricks and electricity were stolen away. Further, the petitioner seems to have filed the suit O.S. No.442 of 2009 and the learned 7th Additional Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad granted interim injunction order in I.A.No.37 of 2009 on 23-1-2009. Admittedly, the rights of the parties have not been crystallized by the Civil Court. In this background of the matter, I feel that the question as to whether the brother of the 2nd respondent purchased the property and had been in possession of the property and whether the bricks and electricity wires were stolen or not, cannot be decided in these proceedings. It is a matter to be adjudicated after a full fledged trial by the trial Court. Hence, I see no merits in this petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this criminal petition is dismissed. ___________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J. Date: 13-10-2011 Dvs THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.4619 OF 2009 Dated 13-10-2011