IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 70 OF 2023 Between: Dasyam Danurbha, d/o Madhusudhana Rao, Aged. 28 years, Occ. Govt. Employee as Assistant Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Rio D.No. 54- 16-3/6, SF-C, Anupama Towers, Loyola Gardens, Vijayawada, Krishna (NTR) District. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, through SHO, III Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., at Amaravati. 2. Gulrez Saleh, S/o Late Saleh Bhai, Aged. 52 years, R/o D.No.9-15-6/8, Flat No. 202, Shakthi Towers, CBM Compound, Rama Talkies Road, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash all further proceedings in C.C.No.3229 of 2019 on the file of the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District, in the interest of justice. I.A. NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased stay of all further proceedings in C.C.No.3229 of 2019 on the file of the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District including appearance pending disposal of the main Criminal Petition. her This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K JYOTHI PRASAD, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and M/s. K S G Padmavathi, Advocate appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: APHC010003792023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] WEDNESDAY ,THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 70/2023 Between: Dasyam Danurbha ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.K JYOTHI PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): I.K.S.G. PADMAVATHI 2.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following Order: 1. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is arraigned as accused in CC.No.3229 of 2019 on the file of I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Visakhapatnam for the alleged for under Section 341, 509 of IPC. This Court while admitting the criminal petition grated stay of all further proceedings in CC.No.3229 of 2019. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s father is the owner of the vacant site admeasuring Plot No.1035, Block No.46, CBI Compound, Asilmetta, Opp: Maharashtra Mandal, Visakhapatnam. The 2^^ respondent under lease of the land. Thereafter the petitioner’s father has filed a suit for recovery of possession. The said suit was decreed and also the possession of property was also handed over to the petitioner’s father vide EP.193 of 2019 in OS.No.633 of 2008. It is submitted that the 2"^ respondent has filed Second Appeal vide SA.No.474 of 2015 and the same is pending and there no stay was granted. It is submitted that the petitioner now alleged to have trespassed into his own property and also threatened the defacto- complaint and to that gave a complaint, the police have investigated and filed charge sheet and the same is numbered as CC.No.3299 of 2019 on the file of I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Visakhapatnam. Even as per the charge sheet it is alleged that the petitioner has restrained the 2^^ respondent by locking the property belonging to the father of the petitioner and the 2'^'^ respondent has no right over the same as decided by the competent Civil Court. A complaint under Section 341 of IPC would not lie against the petitioner. 3. The learned counsel for the 2"'^ respondent submitted that the matter requires adjudication before the trial Court as questions of fact are involved. was 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 2'^'^ respondent and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state. 5. Considering the submissions, the fundamental issue of whether the Provisions of Section 341 of IPC can be made applicable to the facts of the facts of the case as to be gone into by the Court. 6. At any rate, this Court finds that the petitioner cannot be charged of committing offence under Section 341 of IPC. That apart, the petitioner’s father owned the property and they locked property, no trespasser can occupy the same as the property is open land secured by a compound wall and the petitioner’s father has locked it. Thus no offence under Section 341 of IPC made out. 7. Considering the same, CC.No.3229 of 2019 the can be on the file of I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Visakhapatnam is hereby quashed. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- G. HELA NAIDU ASSISTANT REGISTF^ ; SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 1. The ! Additional Chief Metropolitan 2. The Station House Officer, III ^ 3. One CC to Sri K Jyothi Prasad to The Public Prosecutor 5. One CC to M/s. KSG Padmavathi 6. Three CD Copies Magistrate Court, Visakahapatnam. Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam. Advocate [OPUC] High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Advocate [OPUC] r> HIGH COURT DATED:02/04/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.70 of 2023 ALLOWING THE CRLP