IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.P.No.4907 OF 2009 Between: Ravada Tatayya and others …Petitioners A n d Ravada Rama Rao and another ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.P.No.4907 OF 2009 ORDER: This criminal petition is ﬁled under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing further proceedings against the petitioners/A-1 to A-11 in C.C.No.92 of 2008, on the ﬁle of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Narasannapeta, Srikakulam District. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. None appeared for the 1st respondent. Perused the record. 3. The 1st respondent herein ﬁled a private complaint in C.C.No.92 of 2008 against the petitioners alleging oﬀences under Sections 427, 323 and 506 (1) read with Section 34 IPC. According to the complainant, there are some civil disputes between himself and A-1 before the Court and the complainant constructed a house in an extent of Ac.0-8½ cents of Karagam village and when the construction reached the roof level, the Court granted order of status quo and the complainant stopped further construction. He alleges that the accused attempted to trespass into the disputed site and stored the compost and also tied the cattle and the complainant gave a report to the Station House Oﬃcer on 18.02.2008 and that the accused appeared before the police and they were bound over against recurrence of such criminal acts. The complainant alleges that the accused have again on 25.05.2008 tried to encroach upon the complainant’s site by letting the cattle loose and when the complainant questioned, the accused abused him in ﬁlthy language and A-1 instigated the other accused to kill the complainant and thereupon A-2 to A-5 surrounded the complainant and caught hold of his neck, dragged him on the road and A-6 to A-8 brought chilly powder and strewn the same on the face of the complainant and A-9 to A11 also beat the complainant indiscriminately. The incident is said to have been witnessed by L.Ws.2 and 3, who are named in the complaint. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that A-1 was, in fact, assaulted by the complainant and his complaint was referred by the learned Magistrate to the police for investigation and the police registered a case in Cr.No.29 of 2008 and took up investigation and as a counter-blast, the present private complaint has been filed by the complainant. 5. The truth or otherwise of the allegations in the complaint and the question as to whether or not it was only as a counter-blast to the other complaint registered as Cr.No.29 of 2008 ﬁled by A-1, are matters to be considered by the trial Court on evidence that may be adduced during the course of trial, but not at this stage in the present proceedings. A perusal of the complaint would disclose that speciﬁc allegations have been made against the petitioners and speciﬁc overt acts are also attributed against them prima facie attracting the ingredients of the alleged oﬀences. When such speciﬁc allegations have been made to the eﬀect that the complainant was physically assaulted by the petitioners/accused, the matter needs to be inquired into and decided on evidence. There are absolutely no valid or suﬃcient grounds to invoke the inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C and quash further proceedings against the petitioners/A-1 to A-11 in C.C.No.92 of 2008. 6. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 24th November, 2011 Lrkm