IN THE HGIH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICITON) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No.376 OF 2008 BETWEEN: Gandharapu Thrimurthulu S/o. Musalayya and Others …. Petitioners / Accused Nos.1 to 5 AND The State of A.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor High Court, Hyderabad and another …. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No.376 OF 2008 ORDER: This Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed by the petitioners – accused Nos.1 to 5 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C. No.2 of 2007 on the file of II Special Judicial II Class Magistrate, Tanuku. 2. The allegation in the complaint is that on 05-08-2007 at about 5-00 PM, when the complainant was present at the shopping complex, as the workers are doing plastering work, all the accused came to the spot and high handedly trespassed into the site of LW-1 (father of the complainant). When, LW-2 (uncle of the complainant) questioned their high handed action, all the accused pounced upon him and A-1 and A- 4 beat him with hands and legs and kicked him all over the body and caused bodily pains and mental agony. When, the complainant trying to restrain them, A-2 and A-4 pushed him down and A-1, A-3 and A-5 beat him. LW-2 was shifted to Government Hospital by LWs-3 and 4. Then, the complainant reported the matter to the police, who suggested the complainant to file a private complainant before the Court. Hence, this complaint. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that in respect of the same incident, the petitioner No.1 also lodged a complaint and the police after investigation filed the charge sheet before the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Eluru, which was numbered as C.C. No.520 of 2007, and hence, continuation of proceedings is nothing but abuse of process of Court. 4. No doubt, the time of offence, place of offence and date of offence are one and the same in both the cases. But, that cannot be a ground to quash the present proceedings. Whether the petitioners have committed the offence or not, has to be decided by the competent Court. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that in view of the fact that C.C. No.520 of 2007 is pending before the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Eluru, the present case in C.C. No. 2 of 2007 may be transferred to that Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 6. As the allegations made out a prima facie case, the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted and also the question of quashing the impugned proceedings does not arise. 7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed, leaving open to the petitioners to avail the remedies, available to them, under law. _____________ K.C. BHANU, J December 23, 2009. KTL