ORDER :

This criminal petition is filed by the petitioners – A2 to A5 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against them in CC No.813 of 2014 on the file of II Metropolitan Magistrate, L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District.

2. The case of the petitioners in brief was that the 2nd respondent filed a private complaint before the II Metropolitan Magistrate, L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District which was referred to Meerpet Police, registered as Crime No.190 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 379, 447 and 120-B IPC and the police, after investigation filed a final report referring the case as ‘lack of evidence’. Aggrieved by the same, the 2nd respondent filed a protest petition and the court, after recording the sworn statement of the 2nd respondent, had taken cognizance of the offences and registered the case as CC No.813 of 2014 and issued summons to the petitioners.

3. The case of the 2nd respondent as per the private compliant and the sworn statement recorded by the court below was that A1 was the owner of two shops in plot No.33, Jillelaguda, Shakthi Nagar, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and he let out the shops to the 2nd respondent. The oral agreement between them was reduced into writing on 05.11.2007. The 2nd respondent gave an advance of Rs.1,00,000/-. The accused let out two shops, two rooms and a shed in plot No.33 on a monthly rent of Rs.1,000/- from 01.12.2007. A1 assured the 2nd respondent that he would provide water and drainage line within three months from the date of tenancy. Several times the nd respondent requested A1 to provide Municipal door number, but A1 dodged the matter and threatened the 2nd respondent to vacate the premises. Then the 2nd respondent filed an injunction suit against A1 before the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District vide O.S No.5 of 2009. A1 filed his written statement. The said suit was dismissed by the court on 22.01.2013. The 2nd respondent went to Mumbai on 02.02.2013 to attend the funeral of his brother. When he returned to Hyderabad and went to open the shop, he found the lock of the shop broken and costly motor vehicle parts to a tune of Rs.10,00,000/- and cash of Rs.3,000/- was missing. He immediately, went to Meerpet Police Station to lodge a complaint. To his utter surprise, he found A1 in the police station, who threatened him that if he did not vacate the shops, he would file SC and ST case against him. The Inspector of Police told the 2nd respondent that he would investigate the case and refused to acknowledge the complaint given by him. When the police refused to take the complaint, the 2nd respondent sent the complaint through speed post on 18.02.2013. He also sent copies of the complaint to the ACP, DCP and the Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad. On 04.03.2013 at 3.00 PM, when the 2nd respondent was in the shop, A1 along with A2 to A6 came to the shop and forcibly thrown out the table and chairs outside the shop. When the 2nd respondent resisted their acts, he was thrown outside by A2 to A4 and A1 to A6 locked the shop. Immediately, the friend of the 2nd respondent, by name, K. Salahuddin made a phone call to Meerpet Police. The Police arrived and took the 2nd respondent to the police station. The Inspector of Police warned the 2nd respondent not to go back to the shops and if he returned or did any act, he would be implicated falsely in a SC and ST case. Immediately, the 2nd respondent sent the complaint through registered post and telegram. Till date no action was taken by the police inspite of several representations made by him.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent – complainant.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the offences alleged against the petitioners were under Sections 379, 447 and 120-B IPC, but there were absolutely no allegations against the petitioners that they were involved in any kind of theft. It was not the case of the complainant that the