THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6260 OF 2023

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 in C.C.No.603 of 2021 pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Nakrekal. The offences registered against the petitioners are under Sections 447 and 427 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code (for short the ‘I.P.C’).

2. The facts of the case are that the 2^nd respondent- complainant lodged a complaint before the police on 03.08.2021 stating that he is the owner of land admeasuring Ac.1.17 guntas in Sy.No.297 of Cherukupally Village. In the same survey number the 1^st petitioner is also having share and there are land disputes between them, due to which, the elders erected boundary stones to their lands. On 01.08.2021, at about 2.00 p.m., petitioners 1 and 2 along with tractor bearing No.TS 05 UC 6556 driven by the 3rd petitioner trespassed into the fields of 2^nd respondent and intentionally damaged the paddy crop planted in Ac.0.10 guntas. When the petitioners failed to appear before the elders to settle the dispute, the 2^nd respondent approached the police and lodged a report, basing on which, the police registered the case for the above offences and filed charge sheet after investigation.

3. Heard Sri T.Bala Mohan Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing for the 1st respondent-State and Sri E.Vishwa Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent.

4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that A.1 and A.2 are own brothers and they have property in the same survey number, where the property of 2^nd respondent is situated and as there are boundary disputes, boundary stones were erected. The 1^st petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of Ac.0.29 guntas in Sy.No.269/U1, Ac.0.36 guntas in Sy.No.297/U1of Cherukupally Village, his name was mutated in the revenue records and passbooks were also issued in his favour. He further contended that when the 2^nd respondent resorted to highhanded act of trespass, the 1^st petitioner gave complaint on 04.02.2021, but the same was not registered. Thereafter the same was complained to the Superintendent of Police, Nalgonda. Further complaints are also made on 14.06.2021 and 05.08.2021 by the 1^st petitioner against the 2^nd respondent. He further contended that the 1st petitioner also filed suit vide O.S.No.37 of 2021 on the file of Junior Civil Judge at Nakrekal, seeking perpetual injunction. An ad-interim injunction was also granted in favour of 1^st petitioner, notices were served on the 2^nd respondent and the injunction order is still in subsistence. He further contended that when injunction is granted in favour of 1st petitioner and the 2nd respondent violated the said order, the 1^st petitioner filed I.A.No.86 of 2021 in O.S.No.37 of 2021 under Order 39 Rule 2-A of Civil Procedure Code, which is pending for adjudication. The 1^st petitioner was constrained to approach the Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Nakrekal and filed a private complaint against Katkoju Sadguna Chary and his wife Saritha under Section 200 of Cr.P.C, and the same was numbered as C.F.No.72 of 2023 and directed the police to investigate the matter and report under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C, for the offences punishable under Sections 441, 427, 506, 323 r/w.34 of I.P.C., whereas, police have not taken any action on the said complaint.

5. The further contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the allegations made in the complaint are untenable and implication of petitioners is an act of settling personal scores and that charge sheet is filed without proper investigation, when there are serious civil disputes between the parties and the 1^st petitioner is having an injunction order in his favour, registration of criminal case is nothing but abuse of pro