1. This Criminal Petition is filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings in CC.No. 172 of 2010 on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kovvur, West Godavari district.

2. Heard Sri V. Surendra Reddy, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners-A1 to A5, Smt. A.Bala Bharathi, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent-defacto complainant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the first respondent-State.

3. The brief facts of the case, which is sought to be quashed are the following :

The defacto complainant instituted original suit No. 174 of 2009 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kovvur for permanent injunction restraining the petitioners 1 and 2 (A-1 and A-2) and their men from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. In I.A.No. 841 of 2009 the learned Junior Civil Judge granted interim injunction exparte in favour of the first respondent-defacto complainant and against the petitioners on 26-11-2009. Alleging that all the petitioners have high handedly trespassed into an extent of Ac:1-00 in the plaint schedule land,had dug pits on the eastern side of the land with the help of proclainers and caused damage to the land to the tune of Rs.10,000/-, the defacto complainant lodged the report with the police. As the police did not take any action, the second respondent/defacto complainant filed a private complaint before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kovvur on 25-02-2010. The learned Magistrate posted the matter on 01-4-2010 heard the complainant, took cognizance of the offence against the petitioners under section 147, 148, 447, 427, 188 IPC and issued summons to them in CC.No. 172 of 2010. Now the said case is sought to be quashed in the present criminal petition.

4. The learned Principal Junior Civil Judge after making inquiry into IA.No. 841 of 2009 in OS.No. 174 of 2009 disposed of the same on merits by dismissing the same by order dated 23-04-2010. The learned Junior Civil Judge inter alia observed that the first respondent-defacto complainant not only failed to prove that the total extent of Ac:282-44 cents was divided into blocks and the land purchased by him under Ex.P-1 is a portion of land in the "U" block and also failed to prove that there was a re-survey and that in the said re- survey the plaint schedule land was allotted in survey Nos. 67/P and 66/2 and thus according to the learned Junior Civil Judge, the first respondent could not be able to establish the identity of the subject matter of the suit.

5. The question arises for consideration in the present criminal petition is whether criminal prosecution is maintainable against the petitioners-A1 to A5 in the facts and circumstances of the case ?

6. In the first place it requires to be noticed that the learned Magistrate without recording the sworn statement of the first respondent-defacto complainant issued summons to the accused. Therefore, the cognizance is bad for not following the provisions of Section 200 Cr.P.C. As regards, the dismissal of the injunction petition, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent-defacto complainant would submit that against the order passed by the Junior Civil Judge, CMA was preferred and the same is pending. Therefore, according to him the dismissal of the injunction petition by the Junior Civil Judge has no bearing on the complaint and the offences which the learned Magistrate took cognizance of ,have to be tried.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners- A1 to A5 would contend that the dispute is purely a civil nature and the criminal prosecution is not maintainable and the remedy available for the first respondent-defacto complainant is in the civil suit filed by him and he cannot have recourse to the criminal proceedings.

8. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied o