IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD DATED: THIS the 18th day of April, 2011. PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR CRL.P.No. 3384 of 2011 Between: Darga Narayana Reddy and others ..Petitioners and The State of AP and another Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR CRL.P.No. 3384 of 2011 Order: Heard Sri Palle Nageswar Rao counsel for the petitioners. All the four petitioners are shown as accused in C.C.No. 237 of 2010 on the file of the court of III Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, L.B.Nagar. They filed this petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the aforesaid criminal case. 2. The offences alleged are those punishable under sections 447, 506 and 504 IPC and the case pertains to Cr.No. 73 of 2010 of P.S., Medipally. 3. The main contention of the leaned counsel for the petitioners is that civil litigation is pending in O.S.No. 1231 of 2008 between the parties on the file of the court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, R.R.District at L.B. Nagar. It is stated that the de facto complainant has no title to the land and this criminal case is an offshoot of civil litigation. He also relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in B. Suresh Yadav v. Sharifa Bee[1]. The principle laid down in that case is that where the complainant takes contrary stands in the civil suit and in the criminal case that may be aground for a High Court to interfere under section 482 Cr.P.C. That is however not the case here. It is seen that the de facto complainant has through out both in the civil case and also in this criminal case came up with a definite stand about his possession and purchase of the land in dispute. However it is now seen that the matter is again in a civil litigation remanded back to the Principal Junior Civil Judge and the rights of the parties have to be decided there. It is also well settled that the same set of facts may give rise to criminal proceedings and also civil proceedings. All the contentions raised by the petitioners fall within the realm of disputed questions of fact. Therefore, this court cannot interfere under section 482 Cr.P.C. In other words the allegations in the case show offences against the petitioners. 4. In the above circumstances I am unable to agree with the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners for quashing this FIR. Accordingly this petition is dismissed. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners stated across the Bar that the first petitioner and fourth petitioner are aged persons and other petitioners have also their own avocations and therefore the trial court should be directed to dispense with their presence. It is however not for this court to give any directions to the trial court in that behalf. It is however open for the petitioners to make an application before the trial court for dispensing with their presence for every date of hearing and as and when such an application is filed the trial court may consider the same and pass appropriate orders. _____________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J. April 18, 2011. *BVS [1] 2009 (1) SCC (Crl) 282