THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Crl. Petition No.5153 of 2008 Date: 07.12.2011 Between: Nakka Srinubabu and 12 others … Petitioners/ A.4 to A.16 AND 1. Nakka Lova Raju 2.State of A.P., through Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Crl. Petition No.5153 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioners are A.4 to A.16. Charge sheet was filed against 16 persons on the file of the Special Mobile Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kakinada and was registered as C.C.No.9 of 2007. The offences alleged against the accused are under Sections 448, 323, 342 and 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC, for short) as well as u/s.7 (1)(d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955. Out of the 16 accused, A.4 to A.16 alone laid the present criminal petition challenging the charge sheet seeking for the quashment of the same. 2. Sri T. Pradyumna Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the names of the petitioners did not figure in the First Information Report (FIR, for short). The complaint referred to the names of A.1 to A.3 and claimed that others were involved in the case. Smt. Zareena Afzar, learned counsel for the Additional Public Prosecutor, placing reliance upon P. Venkataswarlu v. State of A.P.[1] contended that merely because the names of the accused did not figure in the FIR, the charge sheet cannot be quashed. There are no two views in this regard. However, there must be prima facie evidence against the accused for filing a charge sheet against the accused. 3. The FIR as well as the statements of the accused under Sections 161 and 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C., for short) would constitute the material for determining the complicity of various persons in the commission of the offence. While so, in the present case, FIR did not reveal the names of any of the petitioners herein. 4. However, the learned counsel for the Additional Public Prosecutor drew my attention to Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements of Gunipey Sobanbabu and Devaguptapu Samba Siva Rao (LW.4 & LW.5). They not only referred the names of A.1. to A.6, but attributed overt acts against A.1 to A.6 as well. The rest of the material witnesses in LWs.1 to 3 and 6 to 10 did not speak about the complicity of any of the petitioners in the commission of the offences. I, therefore, consider that there is no material whatsoever against A.7 to A.16 in the complicity of the case, whereas prima facie case is made out against A.1 to A.6 in view of the evidence of LWs.1 to 10. This petition is by A.4 to A.16 only. As prima facie case is made out against A.4 to A.6 as can been seen from the pre-trial statements of LWs.4 and 5, I consider that the charge sheet, so far as A.4 to A.6, is sustainable and cannot be quashed. So far as A.7 to A.16 are concerned, as prima facie case is not made out, the charge sheet is liable to be quashed. 5. The Criminal Petition is dismissed in respect of the petitioners 1 to 3/A.4 to A.6. The Criminal Petition is allowed in respect of the rest of the petitioners/A.7 to A.16. The charge sheet, as against A.7 to A.16, is hereby quashed, as it is found that prima facie case is not made out against A.7 to A.16. 6. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed in part. ________________ K.G. SHANKAR, J Date: 07.12.2011 Isn [1] 2003 SCC (Crl.) 1414