IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWELTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No.8321 of 2009 Between: Madapuram Maddilety Naidu and another ..... PETITIONERS AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and another ....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners : Counsel for the Respondents : The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No.8321 OF 2009 ORDER: This Criminal Petition by the petitioners – A1 and A16 is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in S.C.No.63 of 2009 on the file of II Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool, at Adoni. 2. The allegation is that as per the plan of the accused, A1 along with A2 Varam Padmakka, A12-Gulike Bova Ranganna, A13-Boya Kothi Laxmanna, A14-Boya Pedda Anjanaiah, A16-Banku Ranganna, A19-Yerukali Venkataramudu, A21-Yerukali Nagesh, A24-Yerukali Linganna, A27-Yerukali Ramanjaneyulu, A35-Yerukali Maddilety proceeded in TATA Sumo. A4-Madapuram Diwakar Naidu is the driver of the crime vehicle lorry bearing No.AP26U-1168 and A22-Yerukali Pedda Sunkanna boarded the said lorry as per the instruction of A1 to give moral support to A4. A44, driver of the crime vehicle mini lorry bearing No.KA15-1518, with A3-Narahari, A5-Yogeswar Naidu, A6- Purushotham Naidu, A7- Prabhakar Goud, A8- Ediga Ramesh, A9- Boya Yerra Koulutlaiah, A10-Boya Hanumanna, A11-Boya Chinna Lalappa @ lalu, A15-Arjun, A17-Ediga Devendraiah, A18-Sandupalem Lalappa, A22-Yerukali Yella Nagi, A23-Vadde Veeresh, A25-Yerukali Marenna, A26-Yerukali Nagaraju, A28-Yerukali Animesh, A29-Yerukali Narsanna, A30-Yerukali Venkataiah, A31-Yerukali Sunkanna, A32-Yerukali Maddilety, A34-Kuruva Siddanna, A35-Kuruva Karenna, A36-Madiga Anand, A37-Yerukali Sudhakar, A38-Balija Prabhakar, followed the main lorry towards the scene of offence. Before reaching the scene of offence the above accused secured the bombs and hunting sickles, which were kept underneath of Hundry River old bridge. 3. A1 noticed trax bearing No. AP21M-8434 of D1 coming from Kapatralla village in opposite direction and informed to A4 over phone. A4 drove the lorry with high speed and hit the trax vehicle near Kotha Bodupadu bus stop on 17.05.2008 at about 09:20 hours. A1 along with other accused reached the spot in sumo and mini lorry and attacked D1 and his followers; that A1 hurled bomb on the trax vehicle of D1; that later he hacked D1 with hunting sickle on his forehead; that A4 hacked D1 with hunting sickle on his face; that A3 hacked D1 with hunting sickle on his left hand; that A22 also hacked D1 with hunting sickle; and that A23 hacked D2 with hunting sickle. Remaining accused also participated in the commission of offence by hurling country made bombs and armed with hunting sickles and caused the death of D1 to D5 and D7 to D10 instantaneously and that D6, D11 and LW.30 sustained severe bleeding injuries. The de facto complainant and other witnesses LW.24 to LW.29, LW.34 to LW.39 who are proceeding behind the vehicle of D1, witnessed the ghastly incident and afraid of the same on seeing the deaths of above persons and escaped from the vision of the accused. After completion of their plan successfully, the accused left the place in TATA Sumo and Mini lorry towards Kunnur Village. 4. The inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can be exercised to prevent the abuse of process of Court or to secure ends of justice or to give effect to the order passed under the Code. If the allegations in the charge sheet and the statements of witnesses recorded by the police did not disclose the offences alleged against the petitioners, then only the question of quashing the complaint arises. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that a false case is foisted against the present petitioners, that, A40 was implicated falsely, though he was remanded to judicial custody in another case and the certificate issued by Superintendent, Sub-Jail, Kurnool, would clearly disclose that A40 was not at all present at the relevant point of time of incident and hence he prays to quash the complaint. 6. The specific allegation against the present petitioners is that they along with other accused secured bombs and hunting sickles and when the vehicle of the opponent group was coming from Kapatralla Village in the opposite direction, A1 along with other accused reached the spot in a sumo and mini lorry and attacked D1 and his followers. It is alleged that A1 hurled a bomb on the trax vehicle of D1 and, thereafter, he hacked D1 with hunting sickle on his fore head. Similarly, other accused also hacked the opponent group persons. Some of the accused also hurled bombs on the opponent group persons, as a result, eleven persons died during the course of the attack. Several eye- witnesses were also present at the time of incident, as seen from the material on record. They have stated about the alleged participation of A1 and A16 in the commission of offence. Therefore, a prima facie case under Section 302 read with 149 IPC is made out against the present petitioners and hence question of quashing the complaint does not arise. 7. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that A40 was falsely implicated, though he was in judicial custody and a certificate by Superintendent of Sub-Jail was given to that effect. 8. Though A40 was in the judicial custody at the relevant point of time of incident, it cannot be accepted as a gospel truth and it has to be proved and established before the trial Court. Therefore, basing on the certificate, it cannot be said that A1 and A16 were falsely implicated. In view of the fact that there is a prima facie case to show about the involvement of the present petitioners, the question of quashing the complaint does not arise. 9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _______________ K.C.BHANU, J October 12, 2009 MD