HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.7592 OF 2009 DATE: 29-03-2011 BETWEEN: Dasari Venkata Satya Vishnu Murthy. - - - Petitioner/ Accused. AND The State of A.P., Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another. - - - Respondents. This Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.7592 OF 2009 ORDER: The petitioner is accused of offences punishable under Sections 447, 506/34 of I.P.C. in Crime No.171 of 2009 of Jangareddigudem police station, West Godavari District. The dispute between the parties is in respect of Ac. 3-00 cents out of Ac.6-00 cents in R.S. No.424 of Kethavaram village, Jangareddigudem mandal. With regard to dispute regarding title, neither the police nor the Criminal Court may be competent to go deep into the matter. According to the second respondent/de-facto complainant, the Mandal Revenue Officer, is stated to have given possession certificate in his favour. Subsequently, the second respondent filed O.S. No.15 of 2010 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Jangareddigudem, against the petitioner and also filed I.A. No.43 of 2010 therein for ad-interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of C.P.C. The Junior Civil Judge, Jangareddigudem, by order dated 09-03-2010 after making due enquiry dismissed the said petition and vacated ex-parte interim injunction granted earlier by that Court on 03-02-2010. Questioning the orders of the Revenue Officials, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.7727 of 2009 in this Court and this Court by order dated 17-04-2009 gave directions to maintain status-quo as on that day as regards possession of the land until further orders. The Tahsildar, Jangareddiguem, by letter dated 03-08-2010 addressed to the Station House Officer, Jangareddigudem police station directed the police to withdraw police protection to the second respondent in view of the said orders of this Court in W.P. No.7727 of 2009. It is stated that subsequently, O.S. No.15 of 2010 was withdrawn by the second respondent in the Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Jangaredidgudem. Therefore, the question of the second respondent being in possession of the disputed land by the date of the alleged incident on 16-06-2009 does not arise at all. Even though there was a prior incident on 09-03-2009 and when the second respondent gave report to the police on that incident, the police did not register the said Crime, but are stated to have called the petitioner and chastised him. The report in this case was given on 15-07-2009 to the police alleging that on 16-06-2009 the petitioner obstructed agricultural work in the land and threatened him. No reason is given by the second respondent as to why he did not give report to the police immediately after 16-06-2009 in case the alleged incident occurred on that day. When there is a bona fide dispute between the parties regarding title and when the proceedings in Civil Court as well as in the High Court demonstrate that second respondent was not in possession of the disputed land, the question of petitioner trespassing into the said land on 16-06-2009 does not arise at all for the offence under section 447 I.P.C. The offence under section 506 I.P.C. is a non cognizance offence in respect of which the police can not register F.I.R. and investigate into the case without permission of the court. It is evident that the second respondent lodged belated report against the petitioner due to civil disputes to wreck vengeance and to arm-twist him with some settlement in the dispute. This is nothing but abuse of process of law. Hence, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing F.I.R. in Crime No.171 of 2009 of Jangareddigudem police station. __________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Dated: 29-03-2011 Dsh.