IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.4838 OF 2009 Between: Reddi Naga Raju S/o. Appalanaidu ……Petitioner – Accused No.4 AND The State of A.P., Rep. by the Public Prosecutor High Court of A.P., Hyderabad & another .....Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.4838 OF 2009 ORDER: This Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed by the petitioner Reddi Naga Raju, accused No.4, seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.C. No.112 of 2009 on the file of Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalli, Visakhapatnam District, arising out of Crime No.183 of 2008 of Sabbavaram Police Station, Visakhapatnam District registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 323 read with 34 IPC. 2. Heard. 3. The grievance of the de facto complainant Vachalapu Jagannadha Rao, respondent No.2 herein, is that while he was going on the road, petitioner and the other accused restrained him and one of them caught him and the remaining accused fisted him on stomach and chest and accused No.1 tried to kill the de facto complainant with a spade. 4. Even as per the complaint, the de facto complainant did not receive any serious injuries. It is also not stated in the complaint as to which accused caught the complainant and who fisted him. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the present complaint is a counter blast to a complaint given by accused No.1 against the de facto complainant and others on the basis of which a case in Crime No.184 of 2008 for the offences under Sections 322, 323 and 509 read with 34 IPC, was registered. 6. It is also contended that the petitioner is selected as Police Constable in the A.P. State Level Police Recruitment as well as a Soldier in the Indian Army and on account of pendency of this case, his selection is not finalized. 7. As contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the allegations against the petitioner are omnibus and there is no specific allegation against him as to whether he caught the de facto complainant or beat him and what is alleged is only fisting, which is also not clear as to who beat him. Further, the main allegation of attempting to beat the de facto complainant with a spade is only against accused No.1. 8. In the circumstances, there is no justification in continuing this petty case against the petitioner, which is an impediment for his appointment to Government service. 9. Therefore, the Criminal Petition is allowed at the admission stage itself and the proceedings against the petitioner alone in C.C. No.112 of 2009 on the file of Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalli, Visakhapatnam District are quashed. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J December 9, 2009. PV