HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.7357 OF 2008 DATE.18-11-2011 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 7 (For short, ‘A-1 to A-7’) under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings in Calender Case No.365 of 2005, pending on the file of the Court of III Additional District Munsif Magistrate, Tirupathi, Chittoor District, registered for offences punishable under Sections 186, 447, 427 read with Section 149 I.P.C. 2. Whereas the Petitioners are A-1 to A-7, the Respondent No.2 is the De-facto Complainant in that C.C. No.365 of 2005. For the sake of convenience, I refer the parties as arrayed in the Calender Case. 3. Briefly the prosecution version which is to be considered here is as follows : The de-facto complainant in the case was working as Mandal Revenue Officer in Tirupati Rural Mandal. On the instructions of the de-facto complainant, R. Gopala Krishnaiah, S. Govardhana Swamy and R. Nagaraju, who were his subordinates went to fix the boundaries of Thummalagunta Tank in Survey Nos.60 to 65 with an extent of Ac.77.5 cents and while discharging their bounden duties i.e. fixing boundaries, A-1 to A-7 tress-passed into the land and obstructed them from discharging their legitimate duties and destroyed the fits being used for fixing the boundaries in the land. Hence, A-1 to A-7 are liable to be punished for the alleged offences. 4. It is the contention of learned counsel for A-1 to A-7 that by virtue of Section 195 (i) (b) Cr.P.C. no cognizance of offence punishable under Section 186 I.P.C. can be taken unless concerned public servant files a written complaint and A-1 to A-7 are the owners and possessors of the property. It is not a Government property and hence Section 447 and 427 read with Section 149 IPC are also not applicable here and without ascertaining the identity of the property the case should not have been taken on file. 5. The cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 186 IPC should not have been taken unless concerned Public Servant filed written complaint in that behalf under Section 195 Cr.P.C. However, if the Prosecution claim is true A-1 to A-7 are liable to be prosecuted and punished under Sections 427 and 447 I.P.C. but, before the commencement of the trial of the case the prosecution should place necessary documentary evidence about the ownership of the property. Further, the Magistrate has also to consider whether there is material to prosecute A-1 to A-7 under Section 353 I.P.C. and take necessary action independently. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed in part quashing the proceedings against A-1 to A-7 only in respect of the offence punishable under Section 186 IPC is concerned and in so far as the remaining offences punishable under Section 447, 427 read with Section 149 IPC are concerned, the Criminal Petition is dismissed subject to the observations made. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dated:18-11-2011. Dsh/Kvr.. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY 179 CRIMINAL PETITION No.7357 OF 2008 November, 18, 2011 DSH