ORDER

The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, [for short ‘Cr.P.C’] has been filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 7, seeking quashment of proceedings against them in C.C.No.826 of 2018 on the file of the Court of I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, registered for the offences under Sections 323, 427, 448, 468 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, [for short ‘IPC’]

2. The allegations mentioned in the charge sheet, in brief, are as follows:

a) Respondent No.2 took the ground and first floors of the three storied building of one P.Mohana Rao for rent and has been doing business in the name and style of Sri Parameswara Traders and Wood World Interiors.

b) Subsequently, the said P. Mohan Rao bequeathed the property to P.V. Viswanadham and his wife Savitri Devi. After completion of the lease period, P.V.Viswanadham asked the Respondent No.2 to vacate the building and when the Respondent No.2 refused, P. V. Visanadham filed O.S.No.507 of 2012 on the file of the Court of VII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam to get the Respondent No.2 vacated from the premises and the said suit is pending.

c) That being so, Respondent No.2 asked P.V.Viswanadham to sell away the said building to him for which, he refused. On coming to know the dispute between P.V.Viswanadham and Respondent No.2, Petitioner/ Accused No.1 approached P.V.Viswanadham and requested to give the ground and first floors of the said building to him on lease, for which P.V.Viswanadham informed him about pendency of civil suit with regard to the said property and refused to give the same on lease.

d) Subsequently, on 07.10.2014, Accused No.1 entered into an agreement with Respondent No.2 without the notice of P.V.Viswanadham, according to which, Accused No.1 paid Rs.2.5 lakhs as advance to Respondent No.2 and Respondent No.2 has to vacate the said premises within 15 days on receipt of another Rs.2.5 lakhs from Accused No.1. But, later, Respondent No.2 refused to vacate the same.

e) While so, on 01.12.2014 at 9.00 p.m., Accused No.1 along with his henchmen i.e., Accused Nos.2 to 7 visited the shop of Respondent No.2 and asked to vacate the premises, for which, Respondent No.2 refused, due to which, Accused Nos.1 to 7 trespassed into the shop, beat Respondent No.2 with hands, damaged the front glass and threatened him with dire consequences.

f) As such, Respondent No.2 lodged a report against Accused Nos.1 to 7 with the police which was registered as a case in Crime No.93 of 2015 of Dwaraka Police Station, Visakhapatnam City, and the Police, after completion of investigation, filed charge sheet which was numbered as C.C.No.826 of 2018 for the alleged offences.

Grounds for quashment:

3. Being aggrieved by the registration of the said case, the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 7 filed the present petition seeking quashment of the case against them on the following grounds:

a) As a counter blast the complaint lodged by Accused No.6 against Respondent No.2 i.e., Crime No.41 of 2015 for the offence under Section 3 (1) (x) (xi) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the present case has been lodged by Respondent No.2 with false allegations only to harass the Petitioners.

b) The allegations leveled against the Petitioners do not attract the alleged offences.

c) There are no specific overt acts attributed against the Petitioners.

Arguments Advanced at the Bar

4. Heard Sri V.Vinod K. Reddy, learned counsel for the Petitioners, Ms.D.Prasanna Lakshmi learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State/Respondent No.1 and Sri Butta Vijaya Bhasker, learned counsel for Respondent No.2.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 7 would submit that Respondent No.2 is a tenant, who insisted the owner of the property to sell the same to him. It is submitted that the son of the original owner of the said property filed a suit in O.S.No.507 of 2012 on the file of the Court of VII Addit