HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU a. CRIMINAL PETITION No.1102 of 2007 Dt.20.11.2009 1.M.Gopal Reddy and ten others … Petitioners vs. 1. The State of A.P. Kothakota, Mahaboobnagar District and two others …. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.1102 of 2007 O R D E R: This criminal petition is filed by the accused Nos.1 to 11 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing proceedings in P.R.C.No.41 of 2006 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Wanaparthy, which was filed by the 2nd respondent in Crime No.66 of 2006 of Kothakota Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 448, 323, 506, 436, 379 r/w 34 IPC. 2. The 3rd respondent is the defacto-complainant. The 2nd respondent is the Investigating Officer. There is no dispute that two sons of the 3rd respondent entered into agreement for sale with A.4 on 18.2.2005 in respect of Ac.2.20 gts. of agricultural land in S.Nos.4, 6 and 17 of Sankireddypalli village @ Rs.95,000/- per acre and A.4 receiving part of sale consideration from sons of the 3rd respondent. While so, alleging that sons of the 3rd respondent did not come forward to fulfil their part of contract by paying balance sale consideration and obtaining sale deed, A.4 and A.5 sold the same land to A.1 by way of registered sale deed dated 19.1.2006 after receiving entire sale consideration from A.1. As the matter now stands, is not disputed that two sons of the 3rd respondent did not file any civil suit for specific performance of agreement for sale in their favour in any civil Court. While so, one of the sons of 3rd respondent by name E.Venkatesh gave report to the 2nd respondent alleging offences punishable under Sections 420 and 506 IPC against A.1, A.4 and A.5 and it was registered as case in Crime No.62 of 2006 in the same Police Station. When the petitioners 1, 4 and 5 filed Criminal Petition No.3048 of 2006 for quashing proceedings in Crime No.62 of 2006, this Court by order dated 26.9.2006 quashed that case insofar as offence punishable under Section 420 IPC is concerned since dispute between the parties is one of civil nature and it cannot attract criminal liability under Section 420 IPC. 3. Alleging that the 2nd respondent, who is the Sub-Inspector of Police was interfering in civil litigation between the parties on behalf of family of the 3rd respondent, the 4th petitioner filed W.P.No.3808 of 2006 before this Court. This Court by the order dated 7.3.2006 dismissed the said writ petition on basis of submission made by Government Pleader for Home to the effect that the 2nd respondent undertakes not to interfere in civil disputes between the parties. Subsequently, this crime is stated to have taken place on 08.4.2006. It is alleged that in pursuance of a plan, A.1, A.2 and others used car of A.2, whereas A.9 drove tractor with trailor to the disputed land along with other accused and criminally trespassed into house of the defacto-complainant, dragged her and her husband out and assaulted the complainant with hands and caused simple injuries to her and abused them in filthy language and removed doors, steel sheets etc., of the house and set fire to the house by dumping cloths and other articles of the complainant. It is further alleged that they demolished wall and had stolen away bricks and granite stones in the tractor and dumped the same in fields of A.4. 4. It is contended by the petitioners counsel that civil dispute between the parties is intended to be converted into criminal case with a view to force the accused to go for terms and that it is nothing but abuse of process of law. He placed reliance on decision of this Court in T.Raghu and another v D.B.Raveendranath and another[1] in this regard. It is further contended by the petitioners’ counsel by placing reliance on Parminder Kaur v State of U.P.[2] of the Supreme Court that in exercise of inherent powers, prosecution which is malafide, malicious and vengeanceful intended to settle the scores of parties can be quashed even though reading of allegations in FIR or charge sheet may suggest that proceedings can be continued. 5. On the other hand, the 3rd respondent’s counsel contended that though there are civil disputes between the parties, many times those civil disputes will lead to criminal cases having regard to bitter differences between the parties and that simply because there are civil disputes between the parties ,one cannot come to the conclusion that this criminal case is malafide one. 6. It may be noted that scene of offence in this case is the disputed land and the house property which is sheet-roofed room is in the disputed agricultural land. There is bona fide dispute between the parties with regard to possession of the disputed land, the petitioners 1, 4 and 5 claiming to be in possession of the same and on the other hand, sons of the 3rd respondent also claiming to be in possession of the same. When there is bona fide dispute between the parties with regard to the subject matter or the scene where the offence is said to have taken place, there cannot be a definite finding by the Investigating Officer with regard to offence of criminal trespass, arson and theft of property from that disputed land. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that having regard to the facts of the case and its background and respective contentions of both the parties in respect of the disputed land, the prosecution is incompetent for offences punishable under Sections 448, 436 and 379 IPC. 7. Insofar as offences punishable under Sections 323 and 506 IPC are concerned, even if there are civil disputes and bitter feelings between the parties, one cannot indulge in causing hurt to other party particularly when the victim is an aged lady. I do not find any valid reasons to quash proceedings insofar as offences punishable under Sections 323 and 506 IPC are concerned. The Magistrate will have to now convert Preliminary Registration Case into Calendar Case for offences punishable under Sections 323 and 506 IPC only and proceed with the case as against those accused only, who are responsible for the said two offences. 8. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed quashing PRC No.41 of 2006 of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Wanaparthy against the petitioners/A-1 to A-11 for offences punishable under Sections 448, 436 and 379 IPC. The Magistrate is at liberty to proceed with the case for offences punishable under Sections 323 and 506 IPC as against those accused against whom specific overt acts were attributed. ________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J 20th November, 2009. PNV [1] 2008(1) ALT (Crl.) 40 (A.P.) [2] 2009(1) Decisions Today (SC) 616