THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY Crl.P.No.984 of 2008 Date of Order: 01-07-2010 Between: 1. Pothuraju Venerji and others ..Petitioners and 1. The State of A.P. rep. by its Public Prosecutor High Court Buildings, Hyderbad and another ..Respondents The Court made the following Order: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY Crl.P.No.984 of 2008 Oral order: This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.9 of 2005 on the file of II Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada who took cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 447 and 506 r/w 34 IPC against the accused. It is not disputed in ground No.7 of the quash petition the petitioners have categorically asserted that earlier to the present quash petition another quash petition was filed before this court and the same has been dismissed with an observation to raise the issues in the court below. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that though the alleged offence has taken place in the year 1998, the Magistrate has taken cognizance of the same in the year 2005, which is barred by limitation and the said ground has not been taken earlier. Therefore, the petitioners can file successive quash petition for quashing the proceedings which was taken beyond the period of limitation. Learned counsel was unable to produce order copy of the previous quash petition, but simply stated that the earlier quash petition filed by the petitioners has been dismissed. In the absence of the same, this Court is handicapped to know under what circumstances the earlier quash petition has been dismissed granting liberty to the petitioners to agitate the same before the lower court. Further, the complaint allegations shows that in spite the High Court passing the orders not to lay the road in the lands belonging to the complainant, the accused Nos.26 and 27, viz., Executive Officer, Kondapalli and Mandal Revenue Officer, Ibrahimpatnam with active support and connivance of other accused herein laid the road in the land of the complainant flouting the said orders. It is also alleged that the accused have constructed houses in the land of the complainant. Section 506 IPC provides punishment for criminal intimidation. While committing the offence of criminal intimidation, if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years or to impute unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both. If that be the case, limitation period of three years is not applicable for taking cognizance by the Magistrate. In view of the same, I see no merit in the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The Criminal Petition is accordingly dismissed. _________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. 01-07-2010 Murthy