THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.2322 OF 2023

O R D E R

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.3905 of 2022 on the file of learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-VI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at L.B.Nagar, registered for the offence under Section 431 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).

02. Heard Sri Katika Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 and Smt.S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State-respondent No.2. No representation on behalf of respondent No.1. Perused the record. 03. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that on 11.08.2022, the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 are putting idol in Temple and trying to install the Dwajasthambam in the Buffer Zone area of Nalla Cheruvu in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.149 situated at Uppal Bhagayath village of Uppal Mandal. Hence, they committed the offence under Section 431 of IPC.

04. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 are nothing to do with the alleged offences. All allegations levelled against the petitioners- accused Nos.1 and 2 are false and baseless. The present issue has been before this Court vide W.P.Nos.12926 of 2021 and 7259 of 2022. The allegations levelled against the petitioners are of purely civil in nature. The Respondent No.1 is trying to give criminal colour to the civil dispute. The necessary and essential ingredients required for constituting the offence under Section 431 of IPC are not attracting to the contents of FIR and charge sheet. Hence, he prayed for quashment of criminal proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2.

05. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State-respondent No.2 contended that there are triable issues and factual aspects to be examined by the learned trial Court and it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 at this juncture and the matter is to be decided after conducting trial by the learned trial Court and prayed to dismiss this Criminal Petition.

06. Having regard to the submissions made by the both sides, it is apparent on the face of the record that there are two writ petitions already filed before this Court on the same issue including the parties to this Criminal Petition. It appears that the Police after thorough investigation found that there is violation of the order passed by this Court in one of the writ petition. Therefore, it is for the aggrieved party to initiate contempt proceedings, for any such violation.

07. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is relevant to extract Section 431 of IPC.

431. Mischief by injury to public road, bridge, river or channel—

“Whoever commits mischief by doing any act which renders or which he knows to be likely to render any public road, bridge, navigable river or navigable channel, natural or artificial, impassable or less safe for travelling or conveying property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both.”

08. As seen from the above Penal Provision, there shall be incriminating act or an allegation of mischief by causing injury to public roads, bridges, rivers, or navigable channels, which render the public infrastructure elements impassable or less safe for travel or conveyance of property.

09. On a careful scrutiny of entire material available on record, it is crystal clear that the present issue was already before this Court vide W.P.Nos.12926 of 2021 and 7259 of 2022, wherein allegedly there is a violation of order of this Court. The charge sheet does not disclose any further allegations attracting the provision under Section 431 of IPC. However, as seen from the list of witnesses appended to the charge sheet, there is no independent witness or documenta