ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2, to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.712 of 2021 on the file of VI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Warangal, for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2 is the absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring 1232 square yards in Survey No.16 A and B having purchased the same from one Teli Rukmini Bai vide document bearing No.332 of 1979 dated 06.02.1979. He filed suit vide O.S.No.862 of 2018 along with I.A.No.787 of 2018 before the II Additional Junior Civil Judge at Warangal, and the said I.A.No.787 of 2018 was disposed of on 02.05.2019 restraining the petitioners herein from interfering with the peaceful possession of respondent No.2 in respect of the said land. However, on 17.12.2020, the petitioners trespassed into the said land and tried to raise construction by demolishing the Neem tree. On 18.12.2020 also, the petitioners came along with JCB bearing No.TS 36 E 2422 and tried to dig trenches. Hence, based on the complaint, a case was registered in Crime No.335 of 2020 before the KUC Police Station, Warangal and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed C.C.No.712 of 2021 on the file of VI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Warangal.

3. Heard Sri G. Anil Kiran Kumar, learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Sri S. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners firstly submitted that though the petitioners filed implead petition to take steps to set aside the interim order, which did not attain finality due to pendency of the suit proceedings, respondent No.2 filed a criminal case only based on the temporary interim injunction order passed in I.A.No.787 of 2018 in O.S.No.862 of 2018. He secondly submitted that the petitioners are the absolute owners and possessors of land admeasuring 370 square yards in Survey No.16A and B situated at Lashkar Singaram Revenue village, Hanumakonda and obtained temporary injunction in their favour vide I.A.No.895 of 2023 in O.S.No.306 of 2023. He lastly submitted that though there is no documentary evidence to identify the said land, the petitioners were falsely implicated in the case. Hence, he prayed the Court to allow the Criminal Petition by quashing the proceedings against the petitioners.

5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State opposed the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners stating that though the civil suits are pending, the allegations against the petitioners are criminal in nature. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

6. In view of the rival submissions made by both the learned counsel, this Court has perused the material available on record. Admittedly, respondent No.2 obtained temporary injunction order in I.A.No.787 of 2018 in O.S.No.862 of 2018 and the petitioners obtained temporary injunction order in I.A.No.895 of 2023 in O.S.No.306 of 2023. It is pertinent to note that without declaring title and ownership of the subject land in both the civil suits by the Civil Court, the alleged allegations against the petitioners do not constitute offences under Sections 447 and 427 read with 34 of IPC. Since the concerned Civil Court has to decide the title and possession of the property and both the parties have filed suits against each other, at this stage, it is not for the Criminal Court to decide who is in the possession of the property and who is the owner of the land. As both the parties are having injunction orders in their favour against each other, it requires adjudication by the Civil Court. As such, this Court is of the considered opinion that the proceedings against the petitioners are liable to be quashed.

7. Accordingly, the Criminal Pet