IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWELVETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No.2462 OF 2009 Between: U. Sunila .....PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and another ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No.2462 OF 2009 ORDER: This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “Cr.P.C.”), is filed to quash the proceedings in Crime No. 21 of 2009 of Atchutapuram Police Station, Visakhapatnam District. 2. The allegations in the complaint would go to show that the second respondent/complainant is the registered owner of plot No.14 in Chandanasai Nagar Layout, Somavaram Village, purchased from Gruhajyothi Buildings and Estate (P) Limited, Visakhapatnam, from its authorized representatives 1. Sri Y. Ramabramham 2) Sri M. Srinivasa Rao. The complainant got his plot No.14 duly fenced with wire mesh. On 23.02.2009, the petitioner has entered the above premises of the second respondent along with proclainer and started destroying the roads and drains and other plots adjacent to the second respondent’s plot No.14, claiming that she had not sold any land to Gruhajyothi builders. The second respondent objected the demolition and requested for stopping of demolition. The second respondent is the legal owner of plot No.14 and demolition of any premises in and around the layout will lead to site disruption and entry approach to Plot No.14. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is a bona fide civil dispute existing between the petitioner and the second respondent/complainant; that the petitioner purchased Ac.2-00 of land in Survey No.128/1 of Somavaram Village, Atchutapuram Mandal, through a registered sale deed; that the petitioner obtained permanent injunction against Gruhajyothi Builders in respect of the site in plot No.14, which is claimed by the second respondent herein; that therefore, in view of the bona fide dispute between the parties, continuation of proceedings against the petitioner is nothing but abuse of process of Court and hence, he prays to quash the proceedings. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the second respondent contended that the second respondent purchased plot No.14 in Chandanasai Nagar Layout, Somavaram Village, through a registered sale deed in the year 2003; that the petitioner without any manner of right destroyed the roads and drains at plot No.14 causing damage to the site of second respondent; that therefore, the petitioner has committed criminal trespass and caused mischief and hence, he prays to dismiss the Criminal Petition. 5. Inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked when there is an abuse of process of Court or to secure ends of justice or to give effect to the orders passed under the Code. If the allegations in the complaint made out a prima facie case for the offence alleged, then the question of quashing the complaint does not arises. 6. Whoever enters into or upon property in the possession of another with an intention to cause annoyance to the owner is an offence punishable under Section 447 I.P.C. Similarly, whoever with intent to cause, or knowing that he is likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person, causes the destruction of any property, or any such change in any property or in the situation thereof as destroys or diminishes its value or utility, or affects it injuriously, is mischief within the meaning of Section 425 I.P.C. Whoever commits mischief and thereby causes loss or damage to the amount of fifty rupees or upwards, is an offence punishable under Section 427 I.P.C. 7. The allegations in the complaint would go to show that the second respondent purchased the property in respect of plot bearing No.14 in the year 2003 by virtue of a registered sale deed from Gruhajyothi Builders. Prima facie that sale deed shows that the second respondent has got title over the property. If that is the case, the petitioner has no right to enter into plot No.14 and cause damage to the roads and drains in the plot. Therefore, if the allegations are taken as true and correct at this stage, they made out prima facie offences punishable under Sections 447 and 427 I.P.C. Hence, the question of quashing the complaint does not arise. 8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J August 12, 2010 MD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No.2462 OF 2009 August 12, 2010