THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Petition No.1802 of 2009 (Dated : 16-11-2011) Between: Chennuri Sathyanarayana S/o Veeraiah ...Petitioner A n d Patchipulusu Ramanadham and others ...Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Petition No.1802 of 2009 ORDER: This criminal petition has been taken out under Section 482 Cr.P.C., by Chennuri Sathyanarayana, who is the defacto complainant in C.C.No.281 of 2008 aggrieved by the action of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Piduguralla in not taking cognizance of the offence under Section 364-A IPC. 2. The petitioner filed a report before the Station House Officer, Piduguralla P.S alleging inter alia that he has been abducted and confined in a room and forced to execute certain documents. The Station House Officer, Piduguralla P.S received the report and registered a case in Crime No.23 of 2006 and after due investigation, the police filed charge sheet before the I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Gurajala. The learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Gurajala took the charge sheet on file as C.C.No.112 of 2006. Subsequently, the case came to be transferred to the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Piduguralla and re-numbered as C.C.No.281 of 2008. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents 1 to 14. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the averments made by the petitioner in his report clearly establish the ingredients of Section 364-A IPC and therefore, the police must have registered a case under Section 364-A IPC. Even otherwise, the learned Magistrate ought to have taken cognizance of the offence under Section 364 IPC consequent upon filing the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. 5. The fact remains that the police completed investigation and filed charge sheet and the concerned Court took cognizance for the offences under Sections 365 and 384 IPC and registered the case as CC No.112 of 2006. If the petitioner is dissatisfied by the investigation, he would have filed a protest petition. Invocation of the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C in the given facts and circumstances is wholly misconceived. 6. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed reserving liberty to the petitioner to file a protest petition, if he is so advised. _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt.16-11-2011 RAR