THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Criminal Petition No. 2689 of 2009 Order: This criminal petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is filed by the petitioners/A1 to A6 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.200 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Parigi, Ranga Reddy District. The second respondent herein is the complainant. He filed a private complaint alleging that the petitioners herein trespassed into their land and when he went to the spot the petitioners beat him with iron rods and lotties and that himself and other persons sustained serious injuries and they were shifted to the hospital. The father of the second respondent namely Bansilal lodged a complaint to the police that on the same day i.e., on 14.11.2007 the petitioners 1 and 2 herein and others attacked on him and caused injuries and the police completed investigation and filed charge sheet in C.C. No.264 of 2008 in which the petitioners 1 and 2 alone were shown as A1 and A2. We are not concerned with the other allegations with regard to title of the property. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the police, after completing investigation, filed charge sheet against the petitioners 1 and 2 only and there is no allegation made by the father of the second respondent against the petitioners 3 to 6 in the complaint and that the names of the petitioners 3 to 6 have been subsequently roped in and a false complaint is filed and therefore the proceedings have to be quashed against the petitioners 3 to 6. It is also argued that the second respondent and his father are encroachers and they have no right over the disputed land. Learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that the police in collusion with the other accused did not make proper investigation and that the charge sheet was filed only for the offences punishable under Sections, 447, 427, 506-I and 323 r/w 34 IPC, though facts reveal that the offences under Sections 307 and 326 IPC have been made out against the petitioners/accused. As seen from the contents of the charge sheet in Crime No.166 of 2007 i.e., the charge sheet filed in the police case the father of the second respondent alleged that the petitioners 1 and 2 along with 32 to 40 persons criminally trespassed into the land and beat them. Therefore, it is clear that in the original complaint lodged by the father of the second respondent itself though the names might have not been given, but there is a reference with regard to participation of other accused persons in the commission of offence. Anyhow, we are not concerned with the truth or otherwise of the allegations made against the petitioners herein. When a private complaint and charge sheet in respect of the same offence are pending before the Magistrate, the Magistrate has to follow the procedure prescribed under Section 210 of the Cr.P.C. In Birendra Kumar Sharma @ Birendra Kuer v. the State of Bihar[1], relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the investigation of the police was not completed and therefore the Patna High Court, while disposing of the writ petition, directed the police to conclude the investigation in the case and submit the report to the Magistrate in accordance with law within a maximum period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order and the learned Magistrate shall proceed with the complaint case as well as the FIR in accordance with the provisions of Section 210 of Cr.P.C. In the light of the above, the Criminal Petition is disposed of directing the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pargi, Ranga Reddy District, to follow the procedure prescribed under Section 210 of Cr.P.C. ______________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J. Date: 08.12.2011 Nsr [1] 2000 Crl.L.J. 145