THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.1767 of 2010 Date: 07.12.2011 Between: Bolla Reddy Suibba Reddy and others. ..... Petitioners. AND The State of A.P., rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another. .....Respondents. The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.1767 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioners are A1 to A6. A complaint was lodged by the Tahasildar, Reddigudem Mandal, Krishna District with the Reddigudem Police Station on 19-02-2010. The complaint named the 1st petitioner and others as the aggressors. On the basis of the compliant, First Information Report was registered against the petitioners under Section 353 read with Section 34 IPC. The petitioners seek for the quashment of the same. The petitioners are said to be owners and possessors of lands in Survey Nos.368/IBI A2 BB and 368/32B in Rangapuram Village, Reddigudem Mandal, Krishna District. Claiming that Government was trying to formulate a road through the lands of the petitioners, the 1st petitioner herein filed W.P.No.15594 of 2009 on the file of this Court. The 1st petitioner contended in the writ petition that Government has been interfering with his lands. Government took the specific stand that the pathway was formulated not using any part of the land of the 1st petitioner herein and that the road was already formulated. Recording the specific stand of the Government, W.P.No.15594 of 2009 was closed on 15-12-2009. 2. Later the complaint dated 19-02-2010 was filed by the Tahasildar which was registered as First Information Report in Crime No.22 of 2010 on 20-02-2010. 3. To verify whether the formulated road passes through the lands of the petitioners, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor was requested to produce the concerned map. Smt. Zareena Afsar, learned counsel representing the Additional Public Prosecutor filed the FMB highlighting the portion of the land covered by the dispute. She also filed an affidavit from the Sub-Inspector of Police, Reddigudem Police Station. The Sub-Inspector stated that when B. Venkata Ramulu, Mandal Revenue Officer, Reddigudem Mandal redemarcated the land and laid demarcation stones, the petitioners have removed the same and that the petitioners later went to the office of the M.R.O., Reddigudem Mandal and interfered with the discharge of the official duties of the staff of the M.R.O. A case in Crime No.10 of 2010 was laid against the petitioners 1 & 2 herein on the file of the Reddigudem Police Station under Sections 431 & 434 IPC. Petitioners 1 & 2 herein filed Criminal Petition No.1261/2010 for the quashment of the First Information Report in Crime No.10 of 2010. Through the orders dated 16-11-2011, I allowed the same and quashed the First Information Report. This petition is also an offshoot of the same incident. 4. Sri M.N. Narasimha Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to the complaint by Sri B. Venkata Ramulu as well as to the affidavit by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Reddigudem Police Station. The Allegations against the petitioners were that the petitioners obstructed the Government Officials from discharging their functions and also that the petitioners abused the Government Servants in vulgar tongue. Be that as it may, the time of the incident was not mentioned by the M.R.O., and the Sub-Inspector of Police. What was the language deployed by the petitioners against the Government Officials and how the petitioners caused obstructions to the work of the Government Officials was not mentioned. I am afraid that the complaint as well as the affidavit by the Sub-Inspector of Police are as vague as anything to constitute the offence under Section 353 IPC. I cannot visualize that a prima facie case is made out from such vague averments on the part of the respondents. I am not able to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the Additional Public Prosecutor that prima facie case is made out and that it is a fit case for trial. In view of the allegations being vague and not specific, I deem it appropriate to quash the First Information Report. I am also of the opinion that in view of the main litigation being a dispute about the property owned by the petitioners and the 1st petitioner in particular, it would be a civil lis rather than a criminal matter. Viewed in any angle, this compliant is not sustainable. This petition consequently is allowed. The First Information Report in Crime No.22 of 2010 on the file of the Reddigudem is hereby quashed. _________________________ JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR Date:-07.12.2011 mrb