J R MUNDRA Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.327/96 on the file of X Metropolitan Magistrate Secunderabad initiated against these petitioners for the offences punishable under Section 448 and 506 read with 341.P.C.

(2.) The facts in brief, resulting in filing of this application are as under: The Sub-Inspector of Police, Market P.S., Secunderabad filed the charge-sheet against these petitioners after due investigation in Cr.No.235/96 which is registered on the complaint preferred by one Y. V. Krishna Rao proprietor M/s Leo Electronics, MCH Complex, Secunderabad alleging that on 5-12-1995 at about 1400 hours, these petitioners and others trespassed into the business premises of the complainant styled as M/s. Leo Electronics, abused the defactocomplainant Y.. V. Krishna Rao and threatened with dire consequences if the defacto-complainant failed to pay the amount due to M/s. Videocon International, Aurangabad of which, the 1st petitioner is the Asst. General Manager and that they also resorted to intimidatory tactics with a view to extract the amounts due. The learned Magistrate took the case on file as C.C.No.327/96 under Section 448 and 506 read with 34 I.P.C. and issued process for appearance of the accused. These petitioners also filed earlier Crl.M.P. 1101/97 under Section 239 Cr.P.C. to discharge them, but the learned Magistrate by his order dated 11-11-1997, dismissed that application, stating that there is prima facie case against these petitioners and that it is not a fit case to discharge the accused. Thereafter, the petitioners have come up with this application to quash the said proceedings in C.C.No.327/97.

(3.) It is vehemently contended by Sri V. Pattabhi, the learned Counsel for the petitioners that no incident, as alleged by the prosecution, had taken place, and that there are civil disputes between the 1 st petitioners herein and the defacto-complainant with respect to the business transactions and the 1st petitioner had filed the suit O.S.No. 1488/94 on the file of II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad against the defacto-complainant for realisation of more than Rs.2,00,000/- due from him and that suit is pending trial and as a counter-blast, the defacto-complainant has come up with the Criminal case. He further contends that the ingredients of offence of house trespass as defined under Section 442 EPC are not made out as it happened to be a business place.