THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJU CRIMINAL PETITION No.6147 of 2009 BETWEEEN: 1. Amaragani Srinivas, S/o.Mallaiah & 3 others … Petitioners AND The State of A.P. rep. by Public Prosecutor & another … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.6147 of 2009 ORDER: Questioning order dated 02.03.2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Peddapalli, Karimnagar District, A1 to A4 filed this Criminal Petition. The impugned order was passed by the lower Court on the Protest Petition filed by the 2nd respondent/ de facto complainant against final report filed by the Police to the effect that the case is false. During enquiry of the protest petition in the lower Court, the complainant examined himself and also examined witnesses by way of giving their sworn statements. The lower Court took the case on file against A1 to A4 for offences punishable under Sections 447, 427, 506/34 I.P.C. and ordered to issue summonses to A1 to A4. 2. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that the lower Court in the impugned order did not take note of the points raised in the final report of the Police. 3. Even as per the final report filed by the police, there is no dispute with regard to an incident which took place on 02.06.2006 at 9:00 A.M and presence of A1 to A4 and others at the scene of offence which is his land according to the complainant and which is a cart track according to the accused. In the final report, it is further stated that A1 to A4 went there along with a proclain and tractor and the de facto complainant went against them and did not allow dumping earth into the disputed site/track and inspite of it, A1 to A4 dumped earth in that land in S.No.557. Even as per the final report of the police, two trips of earth was dumped in the lands and there was heated argument between A4 and the de facto complainant. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that it is a false case. There cannot be any dispute with regard to the incident which took place. The dispute is whether the said incident constitutes the offences alleged by the de facto complainant or whether it is in accordance with an interim injunction order in I.A.No.98 of 2005 and O.S.No.7 of 2005 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Peddapalli. Finding on the said question has to be arrived at only after the evidence is let in by both the parties. In view of happening of the incident on 02.06.2006, it cannot be said to be not a fit case for taking cognizance of the offences against the petitioners. 4. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Dated: 04.03.2011 ysk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.6147 of 2009 DATED: 04.03.2011 ysk