IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7536 OF 2010 Between : E.Mounender Reddy. ...PETITIONER A N D The State of A.P.and another …RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7536 OF 2010 ORDER: This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) is filed by the petitioner to quash the proceedings in Crime No.26 of 2010 of Lingala Police Station, Ghanpur, Warangal District, registered for the offences under Sections 427, 447, 341, 354, 323 and 506 I.P.C. 2. The complaint lodged by the complainant reads as follows: “I am a resident of Seripuram of Warangal District and wife of late Narender Reddy, I state, today morning at about 9 A.M. near Budigi well when I was talking with Manjula at that time the stone pillers which was erected Mr.Moninder redder and his mother were breaking them. I have seen them from a distance, and told Manjula that your brother-in-law is breaking the stones having informed I have gone to the panady near the stones, on seeing me Mr.Moninder Reddy has stated that you come you prostitute, and he pulled away the umbrella from me, and beat me with the Umbrella, both mother and son beat me, after that Moninder Reddy has caught hold of my hand and took me from Panadi to his house, all along the road while the beating was going on at that time a tractor driver Chinor Ramesh who was proceeding from Siripuram to Chippala Kunta to load sand Vangala vani who is the head of Bebifit coolies about the beatings, from the said coolies Mr.Barla Narsaiah S/o Dhanaiah by the time he could reach Mr.Moinder Reddy was bearing me to confine me in the house. When Bala Barsaiah has questioned about the beating, Mr.Mohinder Reddy took a vegitable cutter and threatened to kill him, in the mean time S.D.Yakub, Bandi Swami, Chinori Mallesh Masala Krishna have released me, I along with Lalitha, Yendra yadamma, Magarasree took me out of the house, and sprinkled water on my face and made me to drink water and made me to sit in Manjula house, the benefit coolies rescued, on my confinement what he would have done? Hence, on Moinder Reddy and his mother action may be taken, from him I have breath to my life and security be given, not even seeing that I am a female he torn my jacket and beat me and took me to his house and instuled me hence, action be taken”. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that to attract the offence under Section 427 I.P.C., there should be an allegation that some property has been damaged. In this regard, it is to be seen that in the complaint lodged by the complainant, it was stated as under: “….when I was talking with Manjula, at that time, the stone pillers which was erected by me, Mr. Mounender Reddy and his brother were breaking them….” Therefore, the said acts of the petitioner do constitute the offence under Section 427 I.P.C. 4. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that even the offence under Section 354 I.P.C. is not made out, it is to be seen that it was mentioned in the complaint that the petitioner abused the complainant stating that she come to prostitute, torned her jacket and beat her, which clearly reveals the commission of the offence under Section 354 I.P.C. 5. As far as the offence under Section 323 I.P.C. is concerned, the complainant herself stated that the petitioner pulled the umbrella from her and both the petitioner and his mother beat her with the said umbrella. In my considered view, the said acts of the petitioner constitutes the offence under Section 323 I.P.C. 6. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the offence under Section 341 I.P.C is not made out is concerned, a reading of the complaint discloses that the petitioner caught hold of the complainant’s hand and took her from panadi to his house, which constitutes the offence under Section 341 I.P.C. 7. So also the offence under Section 342 I.P.C. is concerned, a perusal of the complaint reveals that when the petitioner was beating the complainant to confine her in his house, some other people came and took the complainant out of the house, which clearly discloses the offence under Section 342 I.P.C. 8. Further the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no specific allegation is made in the complaint to attract the offence under Section 506 I.P.C. However, a reading of the complaint shows that the petitioner took a vegetable cutter and threatened to kill, which constitutes the offence under Section 506 I.P.C. 9. As far as the offence under Section 447 I.P.C. is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no evidence to show that he trespassed into the land belonging to the complainant. But, a careful reading of the allegations made in the complaint to the effect that the petitioner and his brother were breaking the pillars that were erected clearly shows the intention of the petitioner to trespass into the land of the complainant, thereby constituting the offence under Section 447 I.P.C. 10. In view of the above, the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint cannot be gone into by this Court at the stage of First Information Report. But, certainly, a reading of the complaint, prima facie, discloses the offences registered against the petitioner. Therefore, I am not inclined to quash the present complaint and the criminal petition is liable to be dismissed. 11. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed. _________________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO AUGUST 06, 2010. YVL