RAKESH GUPTA Vs. STATE OF AP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 2nd respondent was served with notice, but no one appeared for the 2nd respondent. This petition is disposed of without hearing the 2nd respondent. The petitioners, who are the accused 1 and 2 in Crime No.274 of 2009 on the file of Mahankali Police Station, Secunderabad, seek for the quashment of the FIR. The 2nd respondent laid a complaint before the Police alleging that the petitioners have been interfering with the premises bearing Flat No.207, 2nd Floor, Chandralok Complex, Secunderabad, wherefrom the petitioners have been attempting to conduct their business.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners have been running their business in premises bearing Flat No.220, 2nd Floor, Chandralok Complex. The petitioners are partners and allegedly have been conducting business under the name and style of M/s. Appar Procon. The basic dispute thus is whether the premises is Flat No.207 or Flat No.220. This is a question of fact. I am afraid that it cannot be decided whether the petitioners are in Flat No.220 or Flat No.207 unless evidence is let in before the trial Court. Consequently, I consider that the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C is misconceived.

(3.) It would appear that in fact, the petitioners approached Police alleging that the 2nd respondent had been interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over their property and that the Police directed the parties to approach a Civil Court. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that a suit in O.S.No.533 of 2009 on the file of the I Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, in fact was filed by the petitioners herein seeking for perpetual injunction against the 2nd respondent. However, the petitioners have not obtained temporary injunction orders in their favour.