ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.1 to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1826 of 2022, dated 29.07.2022 on the file of the learned X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Secunderabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 427 of Indian Penal Code.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the owner and possessor of the property bearing Flat No.404, fourth floor of Sreeman Seetaiah Residency, having plinth area of 910.00 Square Feet, including common areas and car parking space along with agreed undivided share of land admeasuring 25.00 Square Yards. He purchased the same through Registered Sale Deed dated 10.02.2022 vide Doc.No.306 of 2022. Respondent No.3 is the resident of Flat No.104 which is an another flat in the same complex i.e., Sreeman Seetaiah Residency. The allegations leveled by respondent No.3 against the petitioner are that on 29.07.2022 the petitioner with the help of two others had broken the wind screen of his car and shifted it from the parking place, parked it near compound wall. Thereafter, the petitioner parked his own Car in the parking place of the respondents. Basing on the said complaint the Police registered a case in Crime No.585 of 2022 against the petitioner, for the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 427 of I.P.C. After completing the investigation, a charge sheet was filed, and the same was numbered as C.C.No.1826 of 2022, pending on the file of the learned X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Secunderabad.

3. Heard Sri Mohd. Sarshar Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. Ganesh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri Sanjeev Gilella, learned counsel for respondent No.3.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is no mischief or trespass on the part of the petitioner as the said parking area belongs to him. He averred that the Civil Court has also granted Injunction Order in favour of petitioner, as such, the petitioner himself is the owner of the property, the question of trespass in his own property does not arise. He further submitted that it is respondent No.3 who has wrongly and illegally interfered with the car parking area allotted to the petitioner. He contended that respondent No.3 also filed false complaints against the petitioner before the local Police. He informed that a Civil Suit is also pending between the petitioner and respondent No.3 with regard to the ownership of the said car parking. Therefore, petitioner prayed this Court to quash the proceedings.

5. Per Contra, learned counsel further submitted that petitioner had damaged the car of respondent No.3 by breaking the wind screen of the car and shifted the car from parking place of respondent No.3 and parked it near the compound wall, and later parked his own car in the said place. When respondent No.3 came to know about the said incident through watchmen, he reported the same to the police. He further submitted that on 29.07.2022 the F.I.R. was lodged, whereas, O.S.No.1063 of 2022 was filed on 08.12.2022, therefore, it is clear that the suit was filed after the initiation of criminal proceedings. As such, the said civil suit is filed only with an intention to escape from the criminal prosecution.

Further, as there is damage to the car and the Police has investigated the case and filed charge sheet stating that the petitioner has committed the offences, the proceedings in cannot be quashed.

6. Having regard to the rival submissions made and on going through the material placed on record, it is noted that admittedly, there is a dispute with regard to the parking place between the petitioner and respondent No.3. The Police has investigated the case and examined the witnesses and also visited the scene of offence, conducted the scene of offence, panchanama in the presence of the panchas and also examined LW3, who is the watchmen of the said Apartment. The evidence of