THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.7648 of 2008 Dated:- 17th November, 2011 Between Somnath Singh and others …Petitioners AND The State of A.P. and another …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.7648 of 2008 ORDER:- This criminal petition has been to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.456 of 2007 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class (East and North) at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District. 2. The second respondent is the de facto complainant. His specific case is that he purchased open plot admeasuring 251 square yards bearing Plot No.53A situated in Survey No.176 of Kothapet Village, Hayathnagar Taluk, Ranga Reddy District from one Bonga Balraj, S/o. Late Satyanarayana under valid sale deed and got it registered vide document No.3707/85 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Uppal, and since then, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same and also constructed a room by spending an amount of Rs.50,000/-. 3. It is alleged that on 16.03.2003, the first petitioner herein, along with his henchmen, trespassed into the land and demolished the room constructed by the second respondent and taken away the material. It is also alleged by the de facto complainant that when he tried to stop them, they threatened him with dire consequences and also claimed ownership over the said property. Thus, a complaint was lodged by the de facto complainant with Police, Saroornagar, on 17.03.2003 against the petitioners and the same was registered as Crime No.199 of 2003 for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 448, 452, 506, 427 IPC. The police, after completing the investigation, laid the charge sheet. 4. Sri Ch.Dhanamjaya, Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the first petitioner is absolute owner and possessor of the entire extent of Acs.16.27 guntas of land in Survey No.176 of Kothapet Village, Hayathnagar Taluk, Ranga Reddy District, and that he filed a declaration before the Special Officer and Competent Authority constituted under the provisions of A.P.Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976, and that ultimately, he was declared as surplus land holder and it was found that he is entitled to 26992.54 square metres of land towards his 40% share in the said survey number excluding the area already sold out. It is also submitted that the proceedings before the Urban Land Ceiling authorities did not show the transaction of the second respondent and that the dispute is of a civil nature and that there is delay in lodging of the complaint with the police. 5. The truth or otherwise of the allegations cannot be gone into or the facts cannot be verified in this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is settled law that where in a case, on a plain reading of the complaint or the charge-sheet, though the allegations made therein are accepted as true, do not make out a case or does not reveal any offences, then only this Court may exercise its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quash the proceedings. 6. In the instant case, on reading of the complaint, it cannot be said that no prima facie case has been made out against the petitioners and I do not see any reason to quash the proceedings against the petitioners. 7. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed. The trial Court may dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible. _________________________ Justice B.Chandra Kumar 17th November, 2011 Bvv