HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.2329 of 2007 ORDER: This criminal petition is filed by the third accused under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing charge sheet in C.C.Sr.No.538/2004 (which is stated to have been taken cognizance as C.C.No.927/2005) on the file of X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad in Crime No.139/2003 of Maredpalli Police Station relating to offences punishable under Sections 448, 427, 506 I.P.C. 2) The 9th respondent is defacto-complainant in this case. It is on his report, Maredpalli Police registered case in Crime No.139/2003, investigated into the same and filed final report/charge sheet in the lower Court. He claims to be site supervisor of his master K.Seshagiri Rao. It is alleged that on 26.06.2003 at about 11.30 P.M when he went to his master’s residence, A-1 and A-2 forcibly trespassed into that premises as per directions of A-3 and A-4 and pelted stones into the premises causing damage to window glasses and threatened him with dire consequences in case he did not vacate the house. 3) It is contended by the petitioner in person that it is a false case foisted against him who is a senior citizen aged about 70 years and that this is one of several similar cases in the series foisted at the instance of K.Seshagiri Rao and that it is a case of civil nature. In this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C this Court cannot go into the question at this stage as to whether the case is a false case or a true case. It is a disputed question of fact which has to be gone into and decided by the trial Court after the prosecution as well as the accused leading their respective oral and documentary evidence during trial in the lower Court. The petitioner cannot expect this Court to find at this stage that the case is a false one. At this stage, except the allegation that false case was foisted against him by taking bribe by the police, there is no proof for the same. It is for the petitioner to establish the said fact before the lower Court during trial. Simply because this Court quashed some of the cases filed against the petitioner in some other proceedings, he cannot expect the same in each and every case of him. Unless the petitioner makes out there being no prima facie case and unless the petitioner establishes that ingredients of the offences with which he was charged are not made out by the prosecution in the charge sheet and in documents and statements appended to the charge sheet, the question of quashing charge sheet or criminal proceedings against him will nor arise. Simply because there are certain civil disputes pending between the parties with regard to the property located at scene of the offence, it would not automatically become a case of civil nature. The petitioner did not file any certified copies of documents relating to civil suits between him and K.Seshagiri Rao. He is at liberty to produce the same before the trial Court at the time of trial of the case. 4) It is contended that A-1 was entrusted with carpentry work in his house by A-3 and that A-2 is a watchman of his house. At the same time, they cannot indulge in the alleged illegal activity of trespassing into the property which is stated to be in possession of K.Seshagiri Rao and cannot throw stones on that house causing damage to window glasses and cannot threaten persons with dire consequences. 5) Unless the petitioner proved the case to be false after trial before the lower Court, at this stage, it cannot be said that the present charge sheet is in violation of his human rights as declared by the Supreme Court in Joginder Kumar V. State of U.P.[1] and D.K.Basu V. State of West Bengal[2]. 6) The contention that the presiding officer of the lower Court did not put his signature and date on the charge sheet, is of no consequence. The charge sheet is entered in S.R register or C.F.R register of the lower Court with a particular date and number. It is sufficient compliance of the requirements of procedure. 7) I do not find any valid or legal reasons to quash proceedings in this case. 8) In the result, the petition is dismissed. _____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J December 31, 2009 KSH [1] AIR 1994 SC 1349 [2] AIR 1997 SC 610