IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1744 OF 2010 Between: Mohd Saber Hussaian & 9 others …Petitioners And 1. The State of A.P., through SHO Kohir PS, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad & another … Respondents This Court made the following: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1744 OF 2010 ORDER: This revision petition is filed questioning the order, dated 11.08.2010, passed in C.F.R.No.595 of 2008/S.T.C.No.174 of 2008 by the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Zaheerabad, taking cognizance of the case for offences punishable under Sections 447, 427, 506/34 IPC against A-1 to A-12 including the petitioners 1 to 10. There is history prior to taking cognizance of the offences by the Magistrate by way of three rounds of litigation to this Court, with which history it may not be relevant to consider herein. 2. It is contended by the revision petitioners’ counsel that in view of pendency of suit in O.S.No.127 of 2005 in the Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Zaheerabad, in respect of the same subject matter land in S.No.98 and temporary injunction order passed therein in I.A.No.569 of 2005, there is bona fide dispute regarding right and title for the land and the channel and that therefore, the Magistrate should not have taken cognizance of the offences against the petitioners. Even though there were three rounds of previous litigation between the parties upto this Court on criminal side, ultimately, the Magistrate took cognizance of the offences after making enquiry under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. in which enquiry, the petitioners 1 to 10 and other accused naturally had no participation. Therefore, the question of the Magistrate taking note of order passed in I.A.No.565 of 2005 and the suit proceedings would not have occurred. The defence of the accused basing on those proceedings, cannot be considered by this Court in this revision petition in exercise of powers under Section 397 Cr.P.C. 3. In the result, the Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. However, the petitioners 1 to 10 are at liberty to approach the lower Court after their appearance and to file appropriate petition for discharge basing on the contentions put forward now in this Criminal Revision Petition. ______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J December 27, 2010 KL HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1744 OF 2010 December 27, 2010 KL