HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.6578 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner/A.1 is accused of offences punishable under Sections 427, 447, 379/109 IPC. Subject matter of the case is land of Ac.20.20 guntas in S.No.361 in the outskirts of Tekulagudem village. The 2nd respondent/de facto complainant claims to have purchased the said land from its original owners prior to the year 2003 and the lands were mutated in the name of the 2nd respondent in ROR (Record of Rights) on 03.05.2003 and pattadar pass book was also issued in his name. A.1 who is the petitioner herein is the rival claimant for the said land. A.2 to A.4 are Supervisors/Labour Masteries under A.1. It is alleged that since one week prior to 17.05.2007, A.1 with the help of A.2 to A.4 criminally trespassed into the said land and started cutting stone and metal and transporting gravel in hired tractors without permission of the 2nd respondent and that damage to the property in this regard is worth Rs.8,000/-. It is further alleged that when Supervisors of the 2nd respondent who are witness numbers 2 and 3 went to the land on 17.05.2007 and questioned A.2 to A.4 about their activity in the land, they threatened them and contacted A.1 on cell phone. It is specifically alleged that A.1 also threatened witness No.2 through cell phone to the effect that the land pertains to him and nobody will stop his work and should not interfere in his work. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that admittedly A.1 was not in the land on 17.05.2007 and therefore filing of this case against A.1 is not maintainable. The specific allegations are against A.1 only as rival claimant for the land. A.2 to A.4 have no claim for the land, except they worked under A.1. The alleged threats of A.1 by cell phone and A.1’s claim for the land prima facie attract his liability for the above offences. Even though he was not present on land on 17.05.2007, Section 109 IPC mulcts him with liability on the ground that A.2 to A.4 were working in the land illegally on the instructions of A.1. There are no grounds to quash charge sheet in this case in so far as the petitioner/A.1 is concerned. Hence, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J Dt. 28th October, 2011. PNV