THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2979 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioners 1 to 7/A.1 to A.7 are accused of offences punishable under Sections 323, 506, 379/34 IPC in C.C.No.112 of 2008 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Narsannapeta. The second respondent is the complainant. The incident occurred on 08.04.2006 when a Seema Chinta tree was cut. The second respondent claimed that the tree was located in his land whereas A.1 contends that the tree is located in his own land. The Magistrate forwarded the complaint to Narasannapeta Police Station for investigation and report under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. The police registered the complaint as case in Crime No.33 of 2007, investigated into the same and filed final report referring the case as false. Thereupon, the Magistrate after recording sworn statement of the second respondent, took the case on file against A.1 to A.7 and issued summonses to them accordingly. The police referred the case as false on two grounds, namely that the Mandal Surveyor after surveying the locality came to the conclusion that the tree in question is located in S.No.244 belonging to A.1 and that witness No.s 2 to 4 named in the complaint did not support the complainant’s version and expressed total ignorance about the case. During pre-cognizance enquiry before the Magistrate, the second respondent/complainant satisfied himself by giving his sworn statement alone. He did not produce witness No.s 2 to 4 mentioned in the complaint and got their sworn statements recorded by the Magistrate. Therefore, statements of witness No.s 2 to 4 recorded by the police during investigation under Section 161 (3) Cr.P.C. remain unchallenged. Further, the second respondent did not controvert the Mandal Surveyor’s report to the effect that the tree in question is located in S.No.244 belonging to A.1. In the absence of any contra material before the Magistrate, the Magistrate erred in taking cognizance of the case against A.1 to A.7 merely by recording sworn statement of the complainant. Further, there is no medical evidence cited to show the second respondent sustained any hurt during the course of this transaction. In that view of the matter, prosecution of the petitioners 1 to 7/A.1 to A.7 for the above offences is without any basis and is unsustainable in law. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing proceedings in C.C.No.112 of 2008 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Narasannapet, Srikakulam District. ___________________________________ JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU 24th September, 2010 bud