IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION NO : 3953 of 2009 Between: 1 Baddula Papaiah, S.o. Peddaih, R/o. Mangalpally Village, Amangal Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District. 2 Baddula Parwathamma, W/o. Papaiah, R/o. Mangalpally Village, Amangal Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District. 3 G.Gurunathy, S/o. Malla Reddy, R/o. D.No. 4-134/2/B , Sainagar Colony, Balapur Village , Saroornagar Mandal, RR.Disrict. 4 P.Narasimha Reddy, S/o. Malla Reddy, R/o. DNo. 4-134/2/B, Sainagar Colony, Balapur Village, Saroornagar Mandal, RR.District. 5 P.Chandrashekar Reddy @ B.Chandrashekar Reddy Narsi Reddy, R/o. 10-6-147/3, Sainagar Colony, Saroornagar Mandal, RR.District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The State of A.P., through SHO., Amangal ., P.S., Mahaboobnagar, rep by Public Prosecutor, High Court , Hyderabad. 2 Arekanti Basawaiah, S/o. Jangaiah, R/o. Mangalpally Village, Amangal Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed therewith, the High Court will be pleased to quash the FIR No. 81/2008 on the file of the Amangal P.S., mahaboobnagar District The Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Mr.NAGESWAR RAO PALLE, Advocate for the Petitioners and of Mr. NUTHALAPATI KRISHNA MURTHY, Advocate for the 2nd respondent and of the Public Prosecutor, on behalf of the 1st Respondent. The Court made the following: ORDER: Heard Sri Palle Nageswar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Nuthalapati Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and Sri A. Ramesh, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent. Crime No.81 of 2008 on the file of Amangal police station, Mahabubnagar District was registered on the written complaint of the 2nd respondent alleging that on 01-03-2008 at 10 A.M. during the course of a Panchayat before the villager elders, the accused abused them in the name of caste in the presence of the witnesses cited and also attempted to assault the 2nd respondent in spite of intervention by the witnesses. Of course, incidentally, the Panchayat was stated to have arisen out of the disputes relating to survey No.1171 of Mangalapalli village, Amangal Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, which also involves protected tenancy rights under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. What the petitioners contend here, with reference to the copies of the sale deeds, dated 13-05-2008 and 06-02-1980 filed by them, is that the 2nd respondent is converting a civil dispute into a criminal prosecution, when the demands of the 2nd respondent and his family members for payment of some amount were not conceded. The petitioners also claimed innocence of any offences and denied the happening of any incident. Sri Palle Nageswar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners referred to some precedents from the Apex Court, wherein the Apex Court found, in disputes relating to immovable properties, absence of any ingredients forming the necessary culpable intention or knowledge to convert the civil disputes into criminal cases. In the present case, the dispute about the land in question might have formed the background for the incident alleged, but the incident itself is not an integral and inseparable part of the civil dispute itself. The incident occurred during the course of a Panchayat trying to resolve the civil dispute, according to the report of the 2nd respondent to the police and the truth or otherwise of the allegations of the 2nd respondent concerning the happening of the incident and committal of the alleged offences, has to be investigated into by the statutory investigating agency unhindered by any premature interference from this Court. As it cannot be said ex facie that there are no grounds to suspect the commission of any offences by the petitioners herein, any exercise of the inherent jurisdiction, which is available in rarest of rare cases, is not called for. However, Sri Palle Nageswar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the 1st and 2nd petitioners were also arrested and released on bail, while petitioners 3 to 5 face the prospect of indefinite detention for no fault of theirs. If petitioners 3 to 5 were to be arrested and produced before the Court, there is no reason to believe that the Court will not consider any request for release on bail as expeditiously as possible and the trial Court can be requested to consider such request for bail forthwith in the interests of justice. Therefore, while the criminal petition is dismissed, in the event of the arrest and production of petitioners 3 to 5 before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kalwakurthy, Mahabubnagar District, the said Court shall consider and determine any request of petitioners 3 to 5 for release on bail in accordance with law on merits on the same day on which such request is made. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 10-08-2009 Svv ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.Two CC's to Public Prosecutor 2.Two CD Copies 3.One CC to Form-NIC-0GS/CRLP{NS}