THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.3307 of 2014

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2, to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.169 of 2012 on the file of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Sangareddy, Medak District, for the offences punishable under Sections 427 and 448 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the IPC’).

2. The brief facts of the case are thatthe accused persons purchased the schedule property i.e., plot bearing No.72 admeasuring 180 sq.yards situated in Survey No.993/47 located at Ameenpur village, Patancheru Mandal, Medak District, from respondent No.2 vide sale deed document bearing No.2922 of 2006 dated 03.02.2006. It is stated that the accused persons are permitted to occupy the schedule property only after paying the balance sale consideration. However, on 04.08.2011, it is found that the accused persons trespassed into the schedule property and when questioned about the same, they threatened respondent No.2 with dire consequences. Hence, a case was registered vide Crime No.302 of 2011 before the RC Puram Police, Medak District and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed vide C.C.No.169 of 2012 before the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Sangareddy, Medak District.

3. Heard Sri S.Ganesh, learned counsel representing Sri G.Sundaresan, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, as well as, Sri Erragi Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State and Sri K.Sarva Bhouma Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they are no way concerned with the alleged offence. He further submitted that when respondent No.2 failed to complete the construction within a period of 18 months, the accused persons constructed the house in the schedule property with their own funds and started living in the schedule property by duly paying taxes. He also submitted that though respondent No.2 filed C.M.A. No. 8 of 2012 against the order dated 23.01.2011 passed in I.A. No.1146 of 2011 in O.S. No.311 of 2011 by the trial Court granting ad-interim injunction in favour of the petitioners, the same was dismissed on 06.02.2012.

Hence, he prayed the Courtto allow the Criminal Petition by quashing the proceedings against the petitioners.

5. On other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State opposed the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners stating that there are serious allegations against the petitioner, which requires trial. Hence, he prayed the Court to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the petitioners besides trespassing into schedule property by breaking the locks, also threatened respondent No.2 with dire consequences. Hence, he prayed the Court to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

7. In view of the rival submissions made by the parties, this Court has perused the material available on record. It is apparent that the only allegation against the petitioners are that the petitioners trespassed into the schedule property by breaking the locks. Whereas, the documents filed by the petitioners shows that the petitioners having entered into agreement of sale dated 24.09.2005, purchased the schedule property vide Sale deed document bearing No.2922 of 2006 dated 03.02.2006. It is noteworthy that since respondent No.2 has not completed the construction of house in the schedule property even after lapse of 18 months from the date of agreement i.e., 24.09.2005, the accused persons constructed the house in the schedule property with their own funds. Pertinently, the trial Court in I.A. No.1146 of 2011 in O.S. No. 311 of 2011 on 23.01.2011 granted ad- interim injunction in favour of the petitioners in respect of the schedule property and the same is confirmed by appellate Court vide order dated 06.02.2012 in CMA No.8 of 2012. Hence,