ORDER : This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (‘for short ‘Cr.P.C’) is filed by the petitioners/A.1 to A.7 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.238 of 2014 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandikotkur, Kurnool District, registered for the offence under Sections 406, 420, 427, 468 and 506 read with 34 IPC. 2. A private complaint filed by the 2nd respondent herein was referred to the Police by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandikotkur, Kurnool District, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C for investigation. On the basis of the said complaint, a case in Crime No.34 of 2013 was registered in Midthur Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 405, 406, 415, 420, 425, 463, 468 and 506 read with 34 IPC. The said crime was investigated and eventually having found prima facie evidence against the petitioners/A.1 to A.7 and A.8 regarding their complicity in commission of the said offences, the investigating officer has filed a charge sheet in the trial Court and the same was taken on the file and numbered as C.C.No.238 of 2014. The said case is now pending trial before the trial Court. 3. The brief facts of the case are that: i) A.1 to A.7 are the family members and A.8 is the V.R.O. Twenty years ago, the father of A.1 and A.3 i.e., Tippu Sulthan, who was the husband of A.2 and son of A.4, had taken a loan of Rs.5,000/- from the 2nd respondent and failed to repay the same and the 2nd respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.5 of 1997 and the said suit was decreed. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent filed E.P.No.127 of 2000 for the sale of schedule property and the 2nd respondent participated in the auction and became a successful bidder and purchased Ac.1.00 cents of land. Subsequently, the Executing Court issued a sale certificate on 12.11.2001 in favour of the auction purchaser/2nd respondent and M.R.O., Midthur issued a pattadar passbook and title deed pertaining to the said land and thereby, the 2nd respondent was put in peaceful possession of the schedule property. The said Tippu Sultan died on 31.01.2005. When the 2nd respondent was in his house, A.1 and A.6 came to him and threatened with dire consequences stating that if he failed to register the said land in their favour, they would see his end. The said Tippu Sultan died on 31.01.2005. When the 2nd respondent was in his house, A.1 and A.6 came to him and threatened with dire consequences stating that if he failed to register the said land in their favour, they would see his end. A.1 to A.7 went to the Sub Registrar Office on 03.11.2012 and informed the document writer i.e., L.W.6 – Mohammad Rafi that A.1 to A.4 owned the land to an extent of Ac.6.80 cents in Sy.No.487 within the limits of Cherukucherla Village by showing the copy of adangal issued by A.8 and asked him to prepare draft sale deed and A.1 to A.4 sold the land to A.5 for a consideration of Rs.4,76,000/-. Petitioners/A.1 to A.7 went to Sub Registrar (L.W.7) and have shown the draft sale deed and the said Sub Registrar enquired about passing of sale consideration by A.5 and confirmed the same and based on the adangal they registered the sale deed vide Doc.No.3547 of 2012 dated 03.11.2012. Photographs of A.1 to A.7 were affixed and their signatures and thumb impressions were also obtained on the documents by the time of registration. ii) While so, on 07.03.2013, A.1 called the 2nd respondent and abused him in filthy language. On 23.03.2013 the 2nd respondent resisted them from taking possession of the said property. At that time, A.5 proclaimed that A.1 to A.4 sold their land including Ac.1.00 cents which was purchased by the 2nd respondent in a Court auction. The 2nd respondent filed a private complaint and the same was referred to the Police by the learned Magistrate and a case in Crime No.34 of 2013 was registered in Midthur Police Station for the offences referred to supra. The crime was investigated and eventually having found prima facie evidence against all the accused regarding their complicity in the commission of the said offences, the investigating officer had filed charge sheet before the trial Court vide C.C.No.238 of 2014 and the said case is now pending trial before the trial Court. 4. Heard Sri Challa Siva Sankar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt. V.Dyumani, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners/A.1 to A.7 would submit that though the petitioners filed the criminal petition, they are not going by merits questioning the charge sheet filed by the investigating officer, which would be decided during the course of the trial. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners/A.1 to A.7 would submit that though the petitioners filed the criminal petition, they are not going by merits questioning the charge sheet filed by the investigating officer, which would be decided during the course of the trial. Further, he would submit that it is extremely inconvenient for them to attend the Court at the time trial on each and every date of adjournment, and further he would submit that the provisions of Section 205 Cr.P.C, while allowing the discretion to the Magistrate to dispense with the personal attendance of all the accused permit the petitioner/A.1 to appear on behalf of other accused in C.C.No.238 of 2014 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandikotkur. 6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there are specific allegations made against the petitioners as such, the matter requires a full-fledged trial and to identify the petitioners/A.1 to A.7 and to ascertain the truth or otherwise of the said allegations. Therefore, he would pray for the dismissal of the criminal petition. 7. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent opposed the criminal petition contending that A.5 is the main culprit and with the connivance of petitioners/A.1 to A.4, the draft sale deed was brought into existence in order to take revenge against the 2nd respondent who purchased the property in Court auction. Therefore, all the accused should appear before the trial Court when called upon by the Court and further, to waive their right of identification in the event of examination of witnesses in their absence. Further, she would submit that the Section of Law mentioned in the charge sheet is a warrant procedure and it cannot be permitted to represent A.1 himself on behalf of A.2 to A.7 by dispensing with their personal attendance and discretion may be left to the Magistrate and prayed to dismiss the criminal petition. 8. In view of the arguments advanced by the respective counsels, and that the offence alleged against the petitioners are warrant procedure, this case does not require to go into the merits and demerits, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2019) 14 SCC 350 wherein at Para No.9 it was held as follows: “9. State of Maharashtra and others, (2019) 14 SCC 350 wherein at Para No.9 it was held as follows: “9. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel and examined the material on record, we are of the considered view that the High Court ought not to have set aside the order passed by the trial court issuing summons to the respondents. A perusal of the complaint discloses prima facie, offences that are alleged against the respondents. The correctness or otherwise of the said allegations has to be decided only in the trial. At the initial stage of issuance of process it is not open to the courts to stifle the proceedings by entering into the merits of the contentions made on behalf of the accused. Criminal complaints cannot be quashed only on the ground that the allegations made therein appear to be of a civil nature. If the ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused are prima facie made out in the complaint, the criminal proceeding shall not be interdicted.” 9. It is not necessary that meticulous analysis of the case should be done before conducting trial to find out whether the case should be ended in conviction or acquittal. The evaluation of the merits of the allegations made on either side cannot be resorted to at this stage and the trial Court should evaluate the case on merits. 10. Hence, with the above, this Court came to the conclusion that the allegations made in the charge sheet, in this case, are sufficient enough for the trial to be taken up and thereby, the proceedings are not advisable to be quashed. 11. In view of the foregoing discussion, it is the discretion of the learned Magistrate to exercise the power under Section 205 Cr.P.C permitting A.1 to represent A.2 to A.7 by dispensing with their presence during trial. However, it may be noted that the provisions of Section 205 Cr.P.C while allowing the discretion to the Magistrate to dispense with the personal attendance of the accused and permit the accused to appear one among them and also empowers the Magistrate to direct the personal attendance of the petitioners/A.1 to A.7 at any stage of the proceedings. However, it may be noted that the provisions of Section 205 Cr.P.C while allowing the discretion to the Magistrate to dispense with the personal attendance of the accused and permit the accused to appear one among them and also empowers the Magistrate to direct the personal attendance of the petitioners/A.1 to A.7 at any stage of the proceedings. Now, the trial is to be conducted and proceeded further in accordance with law on its own merits and it is made clear that the observations made by this Court in the present proceedings are to be treated to be confined to the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C only and the trial Court has to decide the case in accordance with law on its own merits and on the basis of the evidence to be led and without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court hereinabove. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that this would not be a fit case to exercise the extraordinary inherent power vested with this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 12. Resultantly, the Criminal Petition lacks merits and is hereby dismissed. The trial Court is directed to complete the trial proceedings in C.C.No.238 of 2014, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. The Registry is directed to communicate the copy of this Order to the learned Magistrate within a period of one week from today. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand disposed of.