IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION NO.267 OF 2009 Between : Damerla Purnachandra Rao and others. ....PETITIONERS A N D The State of A.P. and another …RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION NO.267 OF 2009 ORDER: This Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed by the petitioners seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.197 of 2008 on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajahmundry, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 448, 506, read with Section 34 I.P.C. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the suit O.S.No.648 of 2007 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry, filed by the second respondent against the petitioners was dismissed and, in such a situation, at no stretch of imagination, it could be said that the second respondent was in possession of the said property. It is also contended by the learned counsel that when the second respondent failed to prove the possession of the property, the question of dispossession does not arise. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that civil Court dismissed only the interlocutory application, but not the original suit and the same is still pending before the concerned Court. 4. Having regard to the rival submissions made by both the counsel, this Court is of the view that in order to quash the proceedings before the trial Court, we have to take into account whether the complaint made by the second respondent disclose an offence. 5. Prima facie, this Court cannot go into the documents, which are relied on by the accused at the time of filing this application. The trial Court is competent to verify the allegations and subjecting the second respondent for cross-examination. The petitioners are also at liberty to produce the relevant documents in their possession to disprove the case of the second respondent herein. 6. In view of the same, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the pendency of the proceedings in C.C.No.197 of 2008 on the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajahmundry. 7. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed. _________________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO JULY 22, 2010. YVL