IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD Thursday, October 13, 2011. Present: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO Criminal Petition No. 3781 of 2010 Between: G. Jagadishwar Rao and another ..Petitioners and The State of AP and another …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO Criminal Petition No. 3781 of 2010 O r d e r: This criminal petition is filed to quash the proceedings in FIR.No.62 of 2010 of Police Station, Shahinyathgunj, Goshamahal Division, Hyderabad registered for the offences punishable under sections 448, 380, 506, 427 and 34 IPC. 2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. There is no representation on behalf of the second respondent. 3. The brief facts required for considering this criminal petition are stated as follows: There is a civil dispute between the petitioner No.2 and the de facto complainant- the second respondent in respect of a Mulgi situated at Feelkhana, Hyderabad. According to the petitioners there was partition of the joint family properties and the said Mulgi in respect of which civil litigation is pending fell to the share of A-1 and therefore the dispute is between A-1 and the de facto complainant. 4. The allegations in the FIR clearly reveal that the dispute between the de facto complainant-2nd respondent and A-1 is purely a civil dispute. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners will submit that on account of the said civil dispute, all the relatives of A-1 were implicated in the complaint given by the de facto complainant basing on which the police registered the case under sections 448, 380, 506, 427 and 34 IPC. A perusal of the FIR further reveals that the names of the present petitioners, who are A-17 and A-18 in the case are not at all mentioned in the FIR. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Joseph Salvaraj A. vs. STATE OF GUJARAT[1] wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “when the FIR clearly discloses a civil dispute between the parties and civil suit filed before a competent civil court by a person with proper locus standi is still pending between the parties to the dispute, there is no cause of action even to lodge the FIR against the opposite party and the FIR registered pursuant to the report lodged by the de facto complainant is liable to be quashed in a petition under section 482 Cr.P.C.” 6. In the instant case also the dispute between the parties is purely of civil nature in respect of which proceedings are pending before a competent civil court. The first petitioner is said to be aged 68 years and the second petition is stated to be aged about 66 years. They are said to be the parents of A-1, with whom the de facto complainant has civil dispute. 7. Considering all aspects of the matter, I am of the view that involving these petitioners (A-17 and A-18), when a civil dispute is pending between the parties before a competent civil court, is nothing but abuse of process of law and proceedings pursuant to the complaint filed by the de facto complainant are liable to be quashed. 8. Consequently the criminal petition is allowed. All proceedings initiated in F.I.R.No. 62 of 2010 of Police Station, Shahinyathgunj, Goshamahal Division, Hyderabad pursuant to the complaint lodged by the de facto complainant (second respondent) in so far as they relate to the present petitioners (A-17 and A-18) are hereby quashed. ___________________ R. KANTHA RAO, J. October 13, 2011. *BVS [1] 2011 (7) SCC 59