ORDER G. YETHIRAJULU, J.:— This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against the petitioners, who are A-8 to A-11 and A-15 in C.C. No. 452 of 2003 on the file of the Court of the Judicial I Class Magistrate, Kaikaluru for the offence punishable under Sections 448, 341 read with Section 34 IPC. 2. The relevant facts in brief are as follows: The 1st respondent herein is the complainant in C.C. No. 452 of 2003. In the complaint, it is stated that the petitioners herein along with police officers trespassed into the factory premises of the complainant and forcibly took away some important files and documents. When the complainant and his men objected, the accused forcibly pushed them away and thereby committed the offences as stated supra. 3. The case of the petitioners-A8 to A-11 and A-15 is that the present complaint has been filed as a counter blast to C.C. No. 759 of 2003 on the file of the Court of the IV Metropolitan Magistrate, City Criminal Courts, Hyderabad. The above C.C. No. 759 of 2003 was taken on file on the basis the complaint filed by A-2 in the present C.C. No. 452 of 2003, against the complainant company and two others. In that criminal case viz., C.C. No. 759 of 2003, a search warrant has been issued by the learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, authorizing the Station House Officer, P.S. Abid Road, Hyderabad to search the factory premises of the 1st respondent herein situated at Chigurukota. 4. The relevant portion of the search warrant is as follows: “… this is to authorize and require you to enter the said premises with such assistance as shall be required, and to use, if necessary, reasonable force for that purpose, and to see every part of the above said premises and to seize and take possession of any property or documents, files, project reports, Marketing information, Marketing strategies, Survey reports, production schedules, know how formulations, technical designs of machines, documents relating to net working of production line, chemical formulations with regard to the produces consumption norms of glazes colorants, documentation which is stored into/available in the form of computer floppies, disks, files suspected to be stolen property and forthwith bring the above property or any other property which you may reasonably believe to be the stolen proper of the complainant….” 5. The version of the complainant in the sworn statement given by him is thus: “…A police person came from Hyderabad on 30-07-2003 along with the police officers the accused Nos. 8 to 11 and 15 have accompanied the Sub Inspector and came to Chigurukota with a warrant. The police officer stated to us that he had the warrant to search our factory premises and went to the house of village President of Chigurukota village. The Accused 8 to 11 and 15 has stated that they had the warrant to search our premises and forcibly driven us out of the factory premises….” 6. The sworn statement of the Deputy Manager of the complainant company reads thus: “… The S.I. of Police has shown the search warrant issued by the Court at Hyderabad authorizing them to search the premises of complainant firm. The Sub Inspector went away to the House of the President of the village Chigurukota and asked the accused 8 to 11 and 15 to search the Factory premises…” 7. Learned counsel while referring to the Search Warrant dated 24.07.2003 submitted that as per the search warrant, the Station House Officer was given authorization to take assistance, which means the Assistance of the police Personnel only but not any other person. Therefore, the petitioners-accused cannot be said to be authorized to enter the factory premises of the complainant. 8. The Search Warrant dated 24-03-2003 extracted above discloses that the Station House Officer was authorized to enter the factory premises with the assistance as required for that purpose. Admittedly, the petitioners-accused entered the factory premises of the complainant along with the Station House Officer, who was authorized by the Court to take necessary assistance. When once they were authorized to search the premises, it cannot amount to either criminal trespass or causing obstruction to the complainant and his men from discharging their duties. The Court while taking cognizance of the offence did not record any reasons except stating that the complaint is taken on file against these accused. 9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the Search Warrant dated 24-03-2003, I do not find any prima-facie case to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners-A8 to A-11 and A-15. 10. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed.