PARESH KUMAR Vs. BALDEVDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Criminal Petitions are filed to quash the proceedings in respective Criminal cases on the file of the IVth Metropolitan Magistrate, City Criminal Court, Nampally, Hyderabad.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the 1st respondent herein has filed a private complaint against the petitioner-accused alleging that he has committed offences under Sections 339,425 and 442 of I.P.C punishable under Sections 341, 427 and 451 of I.P.C. In the complaint it is alleged by the complainant that he is the absolute owner and possessor of H.No. 5-1-757 situated at Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad which consists of a double storeyed building and with some open space. The complainant is in actual physical possession of the said building. It is stated that there is some hostility between the complainant and the accused. On 22nd November, 1989, the accused - Petitioner herein with the intention to commit the offence of mischief at about 10.00 a.m. brought and parked a Morris Car in the open space belonging to the complainant. Due to the said act the complainant and the members of the complainant family were not able to completely enjoy and use the above said house of the complainant. Therefore, they filed a complaint. The cognizance of the offence was taken by the Court below and were numbered as C.C. 134/1993, 775/92,137/1993,776/1992,135/1993and 136/1993 respectively. To quash the said proceedings, these criminal petition are filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there are some civil disputes between the parties regarding the property and, therefore, mere parking a car in front of the house will not amount to any offence and as such, the proceedings are liable to be quashed. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that the petitioner had preferred similar petitions before this Court on the same set of facts and same relief, and the same were dismissed, therefore, the present petitions filed again on the same set of facts and relief cannot be entertained and if the petitions are allowed, it will amount to reviewing the earlier orders, which is barred under Section 362 Cr.P.C. He also alleged that no new facts are raised in these petitions, therefore, they are liable to be dismissed.