IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.5534 of 2009 DATE:11.11.2010 Between: Koduri Ramana …… Petitioner And: The State through SHO PS Korutla, Karimnagar District Represented by Public Prosecutor and another. …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.5534 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner is accused of offences punishable under Sections 448, 427, 506 I.P.C in Crime No.175/2009 of Korutla Police Station of Karimnagar District. The dispute is with regard to a site in which the 2nd respondent/defacto-complainant is stated to have constructed a shed for which the Korutla Municipality has assigned door No.1-4-178/1. The petitioner is power of attorney holder of one K.Sathemma who is claiming 24 guntas in S.No.1272. Whereas the 2nd respondent is stated to have constructed a shed in 109.62 Sq. yards of site in S.No.1266/1. There has been litigation between the parties in this Court by way of W.P.No.1760 of 2009 and W.P.No.12713 of 2009. The municipality cancelled assessment of door No.1-4-178/1 in pursuance of orders of this Court in W.P.No.1760 of 2009. Subsequently in W.P.No.12713 of 2009, this Court is stated to have granted status-quo order in favour of the 2nd respondent. 2) While so, it is alleged that on 05.07.2009 the petitioner along with others came to the shed constructed by the 2nd respondent, trespassed into it and demolished the shed and that when the 2nd respondent came to know about it and went to the petitioner and questioned the same, the petitioner threatened her with dire consequences. To that effect, the 2nd respondent gave report to the police. 3) It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that the dispute is one which is purely of civil nature between the parties and that this false report is given by the 2nd respondent as counter blast for cancellation of assessment by the municipality. Truth or falsity of the allegations cannot be subject matter of this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C as it is a question of fact. It is for the investigating officer to collect evidence and decide on that basis whether the offence alleged is true one or false one. It cannot be believed that there was only a compound wall and not a shed. Without there being a shed, the municipality would not have assigned door number to it and made assessment of the same as house property i.e., the disputed shed. In the circumstances, I do not find any valid or legal reasons to quash F.I.R and to stall the investigation at its threshold. 4) In the result, the petition is dismissed. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J November 11, 2010 ksh