IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH (14TH) DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Criminal Petition No.9613 of 2010 Between: Sathi Anuradha & 4 others … Petitioners And: The State of A.P., Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad & another … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Criminal Petition No.9613 of 2010 ORDER: This petition is filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing further proceedings against the petitioners in CC No.198 of 2008 on the file of the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tanuku. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. Perused the record. 3. The 2nd respondent herein filed a private complaint before the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tanuku, which was referred to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation and report and the same was registered as Cr.No.44 of 2007 by Penumantra Police for the offences under Sections 166, 409, 424, 426 of IPC against the petitioners and after investigation, police filed charge sheet against the petitioners, which was taken cognizance in CC No.198 of 2008 by the learned II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tanuku. According to the prosecution, the 2nd respondent- complainant was granted licence to plant coconut trees in RS No.94/8 o f Koyyetipadu village by the then Tahsildar by order dated 19.07.1963 and the 2nd respondent raised coconut trees and is enjoying them subject to the terms and conditions, by paying tax to the Government. The prosecution alleges that in the recent panchayat elections, A.1 was elected as Sarpanch and she along with her husband-A.2 and associates A.3 to A.5, bore grudge against the complainant as he has not cooperated with them in the election and passed a resolution in the panchayat to increase the height of the bunds and widen the water tanks to cater to the needs of the villagers and under the guise of the said resolution, the accused tried to close the door way denying access to the complainant to reach his land and thereafter, the complainant filed suit OS No.664 of 2006 before the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tanuku for injunction and obtained an order of status-quo in IA No.1575 of 2006. It is further alleged that aggrieved by the same, A.1 and A.2 along with other accused, unlawfully removed the bund having pathway to the water tanks of which 16 coconut trees were situated and removed the trees as well without giving any notice to the complainant. It is also alleged that A.3 to A.5 instigated A.1 and A.2 to remove the electricity pole, which supply power to the cattle shed of the complainant and the accused also dug the soil in the water tank and sold away to the private contractor instead of strengthening the bunds. 4. As seen from the contents of the charge sheet, specific allegations have been made against A.1-Sarpanch and her husbanbd- A.2 and their followers-A.3 to A.5 for having illegally removed the bunds and also coconut trees of the complainant and denying him the access to his land and also unauthorisedly removed the electricity pole supplying power to the cattle shed of the complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the panchayat has duly passed a resolution for widening the bunds and in the course of the implementation of the said resolution, the coconut trees came to be removed and the status-quo order passed in IA No.1575 of 2006 was vacated as per orders in IA No.822 of 2007 and the suit filed by the 2nd respondent herein was dismissed. The petitioners further contend that no offence prima-facie is made out against them. 5. The contention of the 2nd respondent is that without giving any notice to him and under the guise of the panchayat resolution, various illegal acts have been committed by the accused causing loss and damage to him. The question as to whether or not the removal of the bund and the coconuts trees and denial of access to the complainant to his land and removal of the electricity pole were necessitated in the course of implementation of the resolution of the panchayat and whether or not the said resolution was implemented in accordance with law or whether the highhanded acts and unauthorized destruction of the property resulting in loss and damage to the complainant has taken place are all matters to be considered on evidence that may be adduced during the course of trial and the said disputed question of fact cannot be decided in the present proceedings. After due investigation, police filed charge sheet which prima-facie discloses specific allegations attracting the ingredients of the offences alleged. The truth or otherwise thereof cannot be considered at this stage. Under those circumstances, it cannot be said that no offence is made out prima-facie or that continuation of further proceedings is an abuse of process of law. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is therefore, held that further proceedings in CC No.198 of 2008 on the file of the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tanuku are not liable to be quashed by invoking the inherent powers of the Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. 7. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 14.12.2010 bss