ORDER :

This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/A-1 & A-2 in Cr.No.250 of 2011 of Jubilee Hills Police Station, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 427 and 380 IPC.

2. Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioners-A-1 & A-2 and also the first respondent-complainant, who appears as party-in-person and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the second respondent-State. Perused the material on record.

3. The first petitioner-A-1 and second respondent-complainant are husband and wife. The second petitioner-A-2 is the father of first petitioner-A-1. The complainant and accused are residing in the premises bearing No.265/N, Road No.10, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. It appears from the record that the complainant, who is an Advocate by profession, had filed spate of civil and criminal cases against the petitioners.

4. The first respondent filed the present complaint before Jubilee Hills Police alleging that on 19.05.2011 when she was away from India, A-1 and A-2 along with their staff, with a view to harassing her mentally and financially, illegally trespassed and broke open her office situated on the third floor of the premises bearing No.265/N, Road No.10, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad and committed theft of, pending court files, journals, computers, printers, furniture etc. She further alleged in the complaint that the accused committed criminal trespass, theft and criminal intimidation, domestic violence and dispossessed her contrary to law and the Domestic Violence Act as well as the order of the learned Judge, Family Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. After her return to India, she found that the accused put a barricade on the third floor to prevent her entry into the office.

5. During the pendency of the proceedings, learned counsel for the petitioners reported that A-2 died. Therefore, the proceedings against the second petitioner-A-2 stands abated.

6. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners vehemently contends that the allegations in the complaint do not constitute any of the offences alleged; that the complainant filed spate of civil and criminal cases and also the present petition only to harass the petitioners. He further submits that undisputedly A-2 is the owner is the owner and possessor of the whole building where the alleged offence had taken place and the entire third floor of the building is under tenancy to a public limited company i.e., M/s Krishna Godavari Power Utilities Limited. Learned senior counsel further submits that the complainant was permitted to stay in the second floor of the building and she was never in exclusive possession of the third floor. Therefore, the allegations of criminal trespass, mischief and theft made by the complainant against the petitioners, who are none else than husband and father-in-law, are baseless and the present complaint is filed with an oblique motive. Learned senior counsel, therefore, prays for quashing the proceedings against the petitioners. In support of his contentions and submissions, the learned senior counsel relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in STATE OF HARYANA v. BHAJAN LAL, AIR 1992 SC 604.

7. Per contra, the first respondent-party-in-person submits the allegations in the complaint prima facie disclose commission of cognizable offences and there are no tenable grounds to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/A-1 and A-2. She further submits that by virtue of the civil court orders and the protection orders granted by the DVC court establishes that she is in possession of her office premises in the third floor. She further submits that during her absence, the petitioners broke open her office in the third floor of the premises and all her books, pending court files, journals, computers, printers, furniture etc., were shifted from third floor office room to the ground floor. She prays to dismiss the petition to enable the investigating agency