IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.5888 OF 2009 Between: 1. Akula Vidya Prakash Goud @ Vidya Prakash 2. Attelli Raju Goud @ Raju 3. Gudidevuni (Gurudevini) Kasinath Goud @ Kasinath 4. Pullimamidi Siddul Goud @ Siddulu ..... Petitioners – accused Nos.1 to 4 AND The State of A.P., through the Station House Officer, One Town Police Station, Mahabubnagar, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad & another .....Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.5888 OF 2009 ORDER: This Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed by the petitioners, accused Nos.1 to 4 respectively, seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C. No.535 of 2007 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mahabubnagar arising out of Crime No.112 of 2007 of One Town Police Station, Mahabubnagar, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 153(A) and 297 IPC. 2. Heard. 3. The allegation against the petitioners are of occupying a Muslim graveyard for real estate business and making the same into plots. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the claim of the de facto complaint was found to be incorrect and that the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. promulgated earlier were lifted by the District Collector after resolving the issue and with the intervention of the Wakf Board, possession of the land in dispute was delivered to petitioner No.1 herein. 5. Even assuming the case of the petitioners to be true, it cannot be said that the same would obviate in giving a finding that no prima facie case is made out against the petitioner, as the grievance of the de facto complainant is of occupying a graveyard for real estate business. In case, the allegation is not true, the same has to be proved during the course of trial and if the dispute is settled on account of the orders passed by the District Collector and the Wakf Board etc., obviously the de facto complainant would have gone for compounding the case or any settlement before the Lok Adalath etc., which are not done. 6. Thus, as several questions of facts are involved, the impugned proceedings against the petitioners cannot be quashed, as such, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. Therefore, the Criminal Petition is dismissed at the admission stage itself. __________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J November 26, 2009. PV