Bandi Jayachandra Reddy, S/O. B.Ramamurthy Reddy, v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh,

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY CRIMINAL PETITION No.5272 OF 2017 ORDER:

This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/A1 to A3 in Crime No.235 of 2017 on the file of the Station House Officer, Tirupathi East Police Station, Tirupathi, Chittoor District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 452 and 427 r/w 34 IPC.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that due to civil disputes, the 2nd respondent foisted a false case against the petitioners. He further submitted that the allegations made in the complaint do not constitute any offence, much less the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioners. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the allegations made in the complaint prima facie constitute the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioners. 3.

A perusal of the record reveals that the petitioners are A1 to A3 and the 2nd respondent is the de facto complainant in Cr.No.235 of 2017. A perusal of the record reveals that the petitioners filed O.S.No.24 of 2015 on the file of the IV Addl. District Judge, Tirupathi, against the 2nd respondent and others for declaration and consequential permanent injunction and the same was dismissed on 16-11-2015. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree in O.S.No.24 of 2015, the petitioners herein preferred A.S.No.3 of 2016 on the file of this Court. As per the allegations made in the complaint, on 23-06-2017 at about 9.00 A.M., the petitioners illegally trespassed into the agricultural land of the 2nd respondent, which is situated in

Survey No.3/2 of Koramesugunta village and demolished the shed and the compound wall.

4.

While exercising the inherent power under Section Cr.P.C., the Court has to take into consideration the allegations made in the complaint only. The Court is not justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to probability, reliability or genuineness of the allegations made in the complaint at the initial stage of investigation. Whether the petitioners have committed the alleged offences or not will come to light during the course of investigation. The material placed before the Court is prima facie sufficient to investigate into the matter in order to ascertain the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint.

5.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also the principle enunciated in R.P.KAPOOR V. STATE OF PUNJAB1, STATE OF HARYANA V. BHAJAN LAL2, V.Y.JOSE V. STATE OF GURAJAT3 AND TEEJA DEVI V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN4, I am of the considered view that it is not a fit case to quash the criminal proceedings at the threshold.

6.

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and also the principle enunciated by the Supreme Court in ARNESH KUMAR V. STATE OF BIHAR5, the Station House Officer, Tirupathi East Police Station, Tirupathi, Chittoor District, is hereby directed to follow the procedure as contemplated under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. in Crime No.235 of 2017 so far as the petitioners/A1 to A3 are concerned.

1 AIR 1960 SC 866 2 AIR 1992 SC 604 3 (2009) 3 SCC 78 4 2015 (1) ACR 564 (SC) 5 (2014) 8 SCC 273

7.

With the above direction, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this petition shall stand closed.

_________________________ T.SUNIL CHOWDARY, J DATED: 06-07-2017 Hsd