The court emphasized the need for proper investigation to determine the genuineness of the allegations and highlighted the pendency of a civil suit regarding the same subject matter.

ORDER :

Heard the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Though Sri.K.P.Jagan Reddy, Advocate, is on record representing respondent No.2, the said counsel failed to make his appearance and submit his contentions on behalf of his client.

2. By the material available on record, and upon hearing the learned counsel what could be gathered is that respondent No.2 filed a private complaint before the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Achampet. The said complaint was referred to the Police for investigation and report. On that, the Police registered the same as a case in Cr.No.1 of 2013 of Amrabad Police Station.

3. Aggrieved by the said registration of case, the petitioners, who are arrayed as accused therein, are before this Court. They seek for quashing of the proceedings.

4. Thus, in the light of the above facts, the point that emerged for consideration is :

Whether there exists any justifiable ground to invoke the power granted under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings that are pending against the petitioners/Accused No.1 to 9 in Crime No.1 of 2013 of P.S. Amrabad, Mahaboobnagar District ?

5. Making his submission, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that entire dispute is civil in nature and the petitioners tried to resolve the problem by filing a suit, but the respondent No.2 i.e., the de-facto complainant tried to threaten the petitioners by filing a private complaint before the Court and thereby initiated criminal proceedings and thus the petitioners approached this Court to quash those proceedings.

6. The case of respondent No.2, as could be perceived through the contents of the complaint given by him, are that he is the owner of Ac.09-00 gts., of land in Sy.No.219 and Ac.01-20 gts., in Sy.No.245 of Venkateswarlabavi Village, having purchased the said land eighteen years back from the father of Accused Nos.1 to 4 by name Balaswamy. Since the date of purchase he was cultivating the said land and he raised cotton crop. The Accused, who developed ill-intention, on 19-08-2012 colluded with each other and between 03-00 am., and 07-00 am., trespassed into the said land along with a Tractor, which belongs to Accused No.9, and damaged the entire crop and when the witness informed, his wife and daughter rushed to the spot and questioned the accused. The accused abused and insulted those persons in the name of their caste, beat them and drove them out of the land.

7. Basing on the above contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the dispute is civil in nature.

8. Learned counsel also submitted that the name of their caste was used as a weapon for implicating the Accused.

9. Learned counsel brought to the notice of this Court the proceedings in the suit in O.S.No.19 of 2012 which stood pending on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Achampet, Mahaboobnagar District. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said suit was filed by the father of petitioner No.1/accused and others against the de-facto complainant i.e., respondent No.2 herein for grant of permanent injunction. The learned counsel also states that ad-interim injunction was granted in favour of the father of the petitioner No.1 by the said Court.

10. Learned counsel also submits that a counter case is also pending vide Crime No.53 of 2012 of Amrabad Police Station.

11. A perusal of the charge sheet regarding the said crime discloses that it is based on the incident that was said to have occurred on 19.08.2012 at 9-30 a.m. The present incident, as per the contents of the complaint occurred on the same day between 3-00 a.m. and 7-00 am.

12. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that which case is genuine and which is falsely laid among those two has to be decided by the Competent Court and therefore, vacating the stay, permission may be accorded for the Police to investigate.

13. On the other hand, submitting that the proceedings of case which at