The court emphasized the need for sound and reasonable material, the ruling out of factual assertions, and the prevention of abuse of process of law in exercising the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings.

ORDER :

1. Heard the submission of the learned counsel for the parties including the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor..

2. Prayer in this criminal petition is to quash the proceedings that are pending against the petitioners in Crime No.245 of 2013 of Narayanguda Police Station.

3. A perusal of record reveals that the 2nd respondent herein filed a private complaint before the Court of IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad alleging that the petitioners herein and two others have committed offences punishable under Sections 379, 452, 506 and 120-B of IPC. The said complaint was forwarded to the Station House Officer, Narayanguda Police Station for investigation and report. On that, Police registered a case against the petitioners and two others and took up investigation. Aggrieved by the said steps taken by the Court as well as the Police, the petitioners are before this Court.

4. Thus, in the light of the aforementioned factual scenario, the point that emerges for consideration is;

Whether there exist any justifiable grounds to invoke the powers granted under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings that are pending against the petitioners in Crime No.245 of 2013 of Narayanguda Police Station as prayed for.

5. Making his submission, the learned counsel for petitioners contended that the entire dispute is purely civil in nature and the petitioners have not committed any offence whatsoever and when the petitioners demanded their lawful share in the area to which they are entitled to, the 2nd respondent being a developer from whom the petitioners along with others purchased flats, gave a false complaint, and therefore, the petitioners approached this Court for redressal. The learned counsel also stated that basing on the issue which is purely civil in nature, M/s.Arihant Gulmohar Flat Owners’ Association which is represented by the 3rd petitioner herein, filed a suit against the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant and the same is pending, and therefore, to wreck vengeance, the 2nd respondent gave a complaint to Police. Vehemently opposing the said submission, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submitted that the allegations in the complaint clearly goes to show that the petitioners committed theft of material attracting Section 379 of IPC, and therefore, it cannot be termed that the dispute is civil in nature and thus, quashing the proceedings is impermissible under law. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that unless and until investigation to the fullest extent is carried out, the truth or otherwise in the matter would not come to light, and therefore, permission has to be accorded for proceeding with the investigation.

6. To discuss on merits, the issues involved, a perusal of the contents of the complaint are essential. The 2nd respondent presented a complaint before the Court contending that he is a businessman and he undertakes development of lands as apartments and offices. In the similar manner, he developed land in premises No.3-6-433 for construction of apartments through a builder. As per the development agreement, he handedover the parking areas in the ground floor and cellar and also some other flats. As per the development agreement, the prospective purchasers of the flats are entitled to purchase parking area separately from him. The purchasers gave an undertaking that they are fully satisfied with the construction and they have no claim whatsoever against the builder or developer. When the matter stood thus, on 16.03.2013, the petitioners and other accused who have not purchased the parking area, illegally trespassed into the parking area and parked their vehicles. When requested, they abused him in filthy language and threatened. Further, in furtherance of their common intention, they committed theft of construction material worth Rs.9,00,000/-by opening the locks of rooms in cellar and terrace portion.

7. When the learned counsel for petitioners contended that to wreck vengea