THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.9860 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioners 1 to 5/A1 to A5 are accused of oﬀences punishable under Sections 447, 341, 352, 354, 506/34 I.P.C. It is alleged by the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant that when she along with others went to the land of Ac.2.98 cents in Sy.No.84/1, along with a tractor for ploughing the same, the accused illegally trespassed into their land and pushed them and abused them. It is further alleged that the accused pulled the 2nd respondent’s saree end. It is further alleged that the accused threatened them with dire consequences in case they approach the land, as the accused have tenancy rights therein. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that A1 ﬁled A.T.C.No.59 of 1992 before the Special Oﬃcer, under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956, Ongole, for declaration of his tenancy rights in the land and permanent injunction and that the Special Oﬃcer by order dated 14.09.1998, dismissed the said tenancy case and that A1 thereupon ﬁled A.T.A.No.28 of 1998 and the District Judge, Ongole as the appellate authority, gave judgment dated 13.12.2004, allowing the appeal and granting reliefs in favour of A1 and that thereupon, the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant ﬁled C.R.P.No.373 of 2005 in this Court wherein the Revision Petition was allowed setting aside the judgment in the Tenancy appeal. It is further contended that simply because the tenancy proceedings ended in favour of the 2nd respondent, the 2nd respondent is not entitled to enter into the property in question without obtaining possession of the same through Court. This contention of the petitioners’ counsel is incorrect. When there is no relationship of tenant and landlady between the parties, A1 is not entitled to be in possession of the property. Inspite of A1 not being a tenant, might have entered into the property under the cover of an injunction during the course of pendency of proceedings. That will not clothe him with right to be in possession of the property. A person who entered into the property under the guise of an injunction order is not entitled to continue his possession even after termination of proceedings against him. This is not a case where A1 entered into the property as a trespasser who can claim right to be in possession until evicted by due process of law. In any event, the allegations in the report given by the 2nd respondent to the Police do attract the penal provisions for which the case was registered by the Police. It is a matter for investigation to collect evidence and to come to the conclusion whether the allegations in the report are true or false. I do not ﬁnd any valid reasons to quash FIR in this case. 2. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ______________________________ JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU Dt:02.12.2011 ysk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.9860 of 2009 Dt:02.12.2011 ysk