1. This petition is filed seeking for quash of the proceedings against the petitioners in PRC No.40 of 2010 on the file of the III Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar. The offences alleged are under Sections 307, 442, 448, 452 and 506 the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. Heard the counsel for the petitioners; the counsel for the 1st respondent; and the learned Public prosecutor appearing for the 2nd respondent.

3. The averments of the complaint can be looked into, in the foremost, to see whether the facts mentioned therein would attract the alleged offences.

The prosecution was set into motion by the complainant by way of a private complaint filed on 28.01.2008. The reason for filing the private complaint, as mentioned in the complaint, is that the report given to the Station House Officer, did not see the light of the day and no action was taken on the same, the police having been influenced.

4. The facts stated in the private complaint filed by the complainant are that on 10.01.2008, at early hours, all the accused suddenly barged on the main door, hitting the door with Rods and Sticks and created a huge galata, hurling abusive language. Thereby, the complainant and his family members woke up in shock, thinking that some dacoits attacked his house. Since they were armed with weapons and continuously bagging on the main door, the complainant and his family members, fearing for lives, did not open the door. The accused were threatening the complainant and his family members to come out of the house, as they want to shoot him with a gun. Thus, the accused deliberately committed offence of criminal trespass and also attempted to kill the complainant. Due to the galata and the criminal trespass, the neighbouring flat owners came out and asked them as to who are they and why they are creating such sort of criminal act. The accused also criminally intimidated them with dire consequences and directed them to go inside. At the same time, the accused in drunken state, caught hold of the two watchmen and took out a revolver and threatened to kill. In the next morning also some of them once again visited the complainants flat, in a car. Thereby, the complainant gave a complaint to the police, which was not acted upon. Hence, this private complaint, seeking for prosecution of the accused for the offences under Sections 307, 442, 448, 452, and 506 IPC.

5. The aforesaid complaint was referred to the police and a final report was filed, stating that there was lack of evidence. On that, a protest petition was filed by the complainant with almost the same averments, as were made in the complaint and the same was referred to the police and a case was registered in Crime No.92 of 2008 and thereafter the proceedings went up to the case being numbered as PRC No.40 of 2010 on the file of the III Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad.

6. The counsel for the petitioners seek for quash of the proceedings, on the ground that the allegations made in the protest petition or in the complaint do not attract the offences under Sections 307, 442, and 448 IPC as, according to the averments, the accused did not enter into the house of the complainant and they were only standing at the main road and banging the door and they did not commit any act, which would take them within the purview of Section 307, 442, and 448 IPC.

7. The counsel for the first respondent very much persuades this Court to look at the nature of the offence and the outrageous behaviour of the accused that is reflected by the allegations, in order to permit the prosecution to go on, in respect of the offences under Sections 307, 442, and 448 IPC.

8. The agony of the first respondent can be perceived by the agonised submissions made by his counsel. But whatever be the concern of the first respondent, unless the allegations in the complaint attract the offences alleged against the petitioners, the prosecution cannot be permitted. The parameters for quashing the proceedings are well settle