HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.964 OF 2008 DATE: 05-08-2011 BETWEEN: Dharmesh Kumar Gupta. - - - Petitioner/ Accused. AND The State of A.P., Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and The Official Liquidator of the High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. - - - Respondents/ Complainant. This Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.964 OF 2008 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the Petitioner/Accused (For short, ‘the accused’) under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings in C.C. No.153 of 2007, pending on the file of XII Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad. 2. Whereas the Petitioner is the Accused, the Respondent No.2 is the de-facto complainant in the Calender Case. For the sake of convenience, I refer the parties as arrayed in the Calender Case. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the Accused and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the Respondents-State and de-facto complainant and perused the records. 4. The prosecution version is as follows : The father of the accused namely R.K. Gupta (late), Managing Director of M/s. Naya Strap (P) Ltd., obtained lease deed from land lords of three mulgies bearing Nos.11-4-669 to 11-4-671 with a common way in between them in the year 1977-78. Later, R.K. Gupta, Managing Director of M/s. Naya Strap (P) Ltd., either without the knowledge of the landlords or illegally changed the first mulgi bearing No.11-4-669 as Deccan Pipes (P) Ltd., represented by its Managing Director D.K. Gupta, and second mulgi bearing No.11-4-670 as Andhra Pipes (P) Ltd., and third mulgi bearing No.11-4-671 as M/s. Sanskruthi, represented by its Managing Director M.K. Gupta i.e. in the name of his sons and also immediately obtained loans, licenses of sales tax/APIGST and CT in the names of Deccan Pipes (P) Ltd., Andhra Pipes (P) Ltd., and M/s. Sanskruthi in an illegal manner and filed a civil suit against the landlords not to interfere with his possession and enjoyment of the three mulgies and in addition to that misleading the Court of X City Civil Court, Hyderabad, obtained injunction order against them in the year 2001, even though Andhra Pipes (P) Ltd., is under liquidation from the year 2000. On 05-07-2002, the Official Liquidator who was appointed by this Court vide orders in C.P. No.102/2000, dated 23-04-2002 to wound up Andhra Pipes (P) Ltd., visited the said premises for taking its possession, which is under liquidation and sealed the premises including the three mulgies locking them and pasting necessary chits. While so, on 10-05-2003 the accused broke open the seals and locks of Deccan Pipes (P) Ltd., situated in the mulgi bearing No.11-4-669 and as such violated the Court orders and took possession of the premises illegally. Hence, the accused is liable to be punished for the offences punishable under Sections 451, 427 and 188 I.P.C. 5. It is the contention of learned counsel for the accused that the corresponding F.I.R. was given to the police only after one and half years of the incident and even there were no eyewitness for the incident and hence it is a fit case where the proceedings are to be quashed. 6. It is important that there are clear allegations to the effect that the Official Liquidator appointed by this Court took possession of the premises of Andhra Pipes (P) Ltd., including the three mulgis bearing Nos.11-4-669 to 11-4671 situated at Red Hills and after locking the same necessary chits were pasted to the doors of the premises on 05- 07-2002 and later on, the accused who is the Managing Director of Deccan Pipes (P) Ltd., bearing mulgi No.11-4-669 broke open the seals and the locks of the premises bearing mulgi No.11-4-669 and took possession of the premises illegally and violated the Court orders. 7. There are specific allegations against the accused with reference to the alleged offences. Unless necessary enquiry is conducted, the complicity of the accused cannot be decided in the matter. 8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor represents that the corresponding charge sheet was already filed without any delay and therefore the trial of the case can be commenced. Further, simply because one and half years delay was caused in giving the corresponding report to the concerned police, the Calender Case cannot be quashed. Further, as it is a case of breaking open the locks of the premises and occupying the premises illegally violating the Court orders even though there was no eye witnesses to the incident, the same may not be important. Hence, the proceedings cannot be quashed at this stage. For the foregoing reasons, there are no merits in the Criminal Petition and accordingly the Criminal Petition is dismissed. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dated: 05-08-2011. Dsh. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY 257 CRIMINAL PETITION No.964 OF 2008 August, 05, 2011 DSH