B GANESWAR Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners filed the present Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter in short referred to as "Code" for the purpose of convenience) to quash Cr.No.918/2002 on the file of P.S. Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy District.

(2.) At the instance of the 2nd respondent- defacto complainant, the crime was registered under Section 363 I.P.C. inasmuch as it was stated in the report given to the Station House Off icer that the def acto complainant has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the land in question and he got engaged one M. Sailoo as watchman and the said Sailoo and his wife are residing in the shed raised by him in the said land. It was also stated that on 29-12-2002 when the 2nd respondent-defacto complainant was away, his sister received a phone call from the neighbour that some unsocial elements forcibly had taken away his watchman Sailoo and his wife and son and thereafter at 2 p.m. his sister being an Advocate contacted the S.I. of Police and brought to his notice about the said incident and requested him to extend police help. No doubt several other allegations also had been made and other details need not be referred to.

(3.) Sri Kanakaiah, the learned Counsel representing the petitioners/accused would maintain that as can be seen from the averments made in the complaint, the report given it is clear that civil disputes are pending and in a matter of this nature inasmuch as this case was just fpisted the same may have to be quashed. The learned Counsel placed reliance on Madhavarao v. Sambhajirao and Jithendra K. Mehta v. State