said land under registered sale deed dated 30.08.2004, which was implemented by the Mandal Revenue Officer by mutation proceedings and issuance of pattadar pass book and title deed to the 2nd respondent for the land. Pahani entries are also infavour of the 2nd respondent. While so, the 2nd respondent filed Suit O.S.No.178 of 2005 against A1 to A3 for permanent injunction and also sought for interim injunction. The Civil Court granted adinterim injunction and made the same absolute in favour of the 2nd respondent. At that stage, the Suit was dismissed for default on 24.07.2009. Thereafter, it is alleged that A1 to A6 went to the land, abused the 2nd respondent in filthy language and broke fencing stones and barbed wire causing loss to the extent of Rs.75,000/and that A1 to A6 also warned the 2nd respondent to see his end if he comes to the land. The allegations in the complaint filed by the 2nd respondent do disclose the offences for which the case was registered by the Police. Truth or otherwise of the said allegations is a question of fact which this Court cannot entertain and decide in this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Though basic dispute between the parties is a civil dispute regarding the land, the overt acts alleged against A1 to A6 transpired the said civil dispute into one which has got criminal propensities. I do not find any valid or legal reasons to
