Criminal Petition No. 2690 of 2010 · Andhra Pradesh High Court

This Criminal Petition is filed by A1, A3 and A4 in Crime No. 434 of 2009 of III-Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam to quash the FIR.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the first respondent-State. There is no representation for the second respondent-defacto complainant.

On 27-07-2009 the second respondent lodged a report with the III-Town Police, Visakhapatnam alleging that he owned vacant site of 600 sq.yards in survey No. 45/6-P of Resapuvanipalem. He sold the property to one Peela Govinda Satyanarayana under a registered sale deed and was about to hand over the said property. It is also mentioned therein that with a view to hand over the property, they shifted the household articles to another house on 24-7-2009 in the thatched shed situated in the said property. While so, on the same day at about 06:00 p.m. the petitioners and others allegedly trespassed into the property and demolished the huts situated therein by using JCB. It is also alleged in the said report that the petitioners caught her saree, kicked on her private part and thereby outraged her modesty. Initially basing on the report of the defacto complainant, the police registered a case in Crime No. 434 of 2009 under section 354, 447, 341, 427, 506 read with section 34 IPC. The police investigated into the matter and filed charge sheet deleting the offence under section 354 IPC on the ground that the allegation of outraging modesty of the defacto complainant and other womenfolk is an exaggerated version.

Admittedly, the incident took place on 24-7-2009 and the defacto complainant lodged report with the police on 27-07-2009. The first petitioner filed OS.No.987 of 2009 on the file of the Court V-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam and obtained interim injunction in his favour. Subsequently it is said that after enquiring the interlocutory application on merits, the interim injunction granted was made absolute.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that on coming to know about the filing of the civil suit, the defacto complainant laid false report with the police, the dispute between the parties is purely a civil dispute and the criminal proceedings initiated against them are nothing but abuse of process of law.

On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State would submit that the police in the course of investigation examined seven witnesses, who totally supported the version of the defacto complainant and the charge sheet could not be filed because of the interim stay granted by this court. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the incident involves commission of offence and it is not a fit case to be quashed at the threshold.

Perused the material papers available on record and on considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that merely because temporary injunction is granted in favour of the petitioner holding that he is in possession of the property, it is not possible to take a view that the criminal prosecution is not maintainable. The suit is pending between the parties and the order passed by the civil court is in an interlocutory application. If really the huts were damaged and loss was caused to the defacto complainant and other inhabitants of the huts certainly it involves criminal offence, which has to be tried by a criminal court. It is, therefore, not possible for me to accede to the submission that the dispute is of purely civil nature in respect of which criminal prosecution is not maintainable.