THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.1261 of 2010 Date: 16.11.2011 Between: Bolla Reddy Subba Reddy and another. ..... Petitioners. AND The State of A.P., Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another. .....Respondents. The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.1261 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioners seek for quashing of the First Information Report in Crime No.10 of 2010 of Reddigudem Police Station. The complaint was under Sections 431 and 434, IPC. Section 431, IPC provides punishment for mischief to public road etc. Section 434, IPC provides punishment for causing mischief by destroying or removing landmarks fixed by the public authorities including survey stones and fencing. It is the case of the 2nd respondent as complainant that the petitioners have been interfering with the road in R.S.No.368/1B1 A2 BB & R.S.No.368/3A2B. 2 . Sri M.N. Narasimha Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the above mentioned properties are the private properties of the petitioners and that Government has been trying to lay a road across these properties where mango tope is situate. He contended that Government cannot lay road over the private properties of the petitioners without acquiring the same and that the petitioners are entitle to protect their own property. 3 . He contended that when the Government attempted to lay the road, the petitioners moved the High Court by laying W.P.No.15594 of 2009. Orders were passed in W.P.No.15594 of 2009 on 15-12-2009. Government had taken a specific stand in the writ petition that no part of the land of the petitioner is touched in the formation of the road and that the formation of the road indeed had already been completed. On the face of this specific stand, it is now contended by the 2nd respondent that the petitioners have been interfering with the road so formed. 4 . Smt S. Hemalatha, representing the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the Tahasildar had instructed her that the road was laid on 30-07-2007 itself, that it is a Calidari Donka (roughly formulated road) and that the political parties have been instigating the petitioners to raise a dispute. I am afraid that where the Government admitted and took the stand in W.P.No.15594 of 2009 that no part of the road passes through the lands of the petitioners, Government cannot now take a stand that the petitioners have been interfering with the road which passes through their land. I wholly agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are entitle to protect their lands and that no offence can be said to have been made out against the petitioners for protecting their own lands. Consequently, the First Information Report in respect of the lands owned by the petitioners is not sustainable. The First Information Report is liable to be quashed. 5 . Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The First Information Report in Crime No.10 of 2010 is hereby quashed. However, I make it clear that in the event the petitioners are interfering with the road laid beyond their site, Government certainly is at liberty to proceed against the petitioners by invoking due process of law. _________________________ JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR Date:16.11.2011 mrb