APHC010557632024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9048/2024 Between: Thirupathi Swamy Valeti and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND The State and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. P HEMACHANDRA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. NAGA PRAVEEN VANKAYALAPATI 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following Order: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have purchased the property over which the 2nd respondent is also claiming the ownership. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have purchased the property in the year 1997 admeasuring Ac.18.48 cents in survey Nos.359, 360 and 362. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the said property. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent that the 2nd respondent has filed a suit for specific performance vide OS.No.158 of 2013 and the suit was decreed exparte. As the execution of sale deed could not be done by the defendant therein. The 2nd respondent filed an execution petition and the sale deed was executed by the representative of the Court. 4. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submits that they are in possession of eight acres of land in survey numbers 359, 360, 374 and 275 admeasuring Ac.8.02 cents of land. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent that they are the owners of the property. As such they cannot be restrained from entering the land. On the other hand, the petitioners claim as owners of larger extent of land and they have been in possession and enjoyment since 1997 and that the penal provisions of Section 447 of IPC cannot be attracted and the petitioners cannot be alleged to have trespassed into their own property. Considering the rival submissions, this Court deems if appropriate to dispose this criminal petition directing the petitioner to raise all the contentions raised in this petition before the trial Court. The questions of fact are to be dealt by the trial Court. 5. Accordingly the criminal petition is disposed off in terms of interim order granted by this Court on 19.12.2024. 6. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N KGM 211 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION No.9048 of 2024 Date 27.03.2025 KGM