IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.7909 of 2007 DATE:22.07.2010 Between: V.Anand Rao and another …… Petitioners/Accused And: Nettem Chandra Sekhar Rao and another …..Respondents/Complainants HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.7909 of 2007 ORDER : The petitioners 1 and 2/A-1 and A-2 are accused of offences punishable under Sections 323, 379 and 506 I.P.C on the file of II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in C.C. No.835 of 2007. The 1st petitioner is working as Assistant Secretary to the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. The 2nd petitioner is working as office superintendent in the same office. Trouble arose when the 1st respondent/complainant was stated to be distributing certain pamphlets in that office. The said pamphlets contained allegations against officers in that office. It is stated that the 1st respondent is a friend of Mogili Koteswara Rao who is chairman of A.P.Prohibition and Excise Head Constables, Tree Markers and Constables Association. It is alleged that when the 1st respondent and another were waiting for Koteswara Rao, an unknown person came and kept two pamphlets in the hands of the complainant and another and when they were going through the contents of those pamphlets, A-2 came to them and asked them to meet A-1 and that thereupon A-1 informed the same to A-3 who is the then Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise over intercom about the 1st respondent and another distributing pamphlets against the accused persons by criminally trespassing into the office. It is further alleged that the 1st respondent was taken to chambers of A-3 and that A-1 to A-3 abused the 1st respondent in filthy language and beat him on the entire body with hands and legs and that the 1st respondent was also relieved of Rs.2,400/- from his pocket by A-1 and A-2. 2) It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that this frivolous case was foisted by the 1st respondent as a counter blast for the case registered against him and that it is a false case and that in any event since A-1 and A-2 are public servants, sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is a condition precedent for taking cognizance for the case. 3) Truth or falsity of allegations contained in the complaint and in the sworn statement cannot be considered in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C by way of assessment of evidence, as it is a question of fact. Secondly, the petitioners 1 and 2/A-1 and A-2 cannot claim protection under Section 197 Cr.P.C because it is no part of their duty to allegedly beat the complainant and relieve him of Rs.2,400/- lying in his pocket. A-1 and A-2 were not acting muchless purporting to act in their official capacity during the course of the alleged incident. 4) The incident took place on 26.02.2007. On the same day Crime No.61/2007 was registered in Abid Road Police Station, Hyderabad against the 1st respondent for offence punishable under Sections 448 and 506 I.P.C, on report given by the 1st petitioner/A-1. On the same day, the police took the 1st respondent into custody and it is stated that he was released on bail by the Court on the same day. The private complaint in the lower Court was filed on 13.03.2007, after 16 days of the offence. In the complaint, it is stated that the 1st respondent gave report against the accused to the Abid Road Police on the same day and they refused to take the same and refused to give acknowledgement also. Nothing prevented the 1st respondent to file private complaint in the lower Court immediately thereafter. He waited for about 16 days and lodged this complaint in the lower Court. The present complaint is evidently as a counter blast for registration of crime No.61/2007 in Abid Road Police Station on report given by the 1st petitioner/A-1. It is evident that this private complaint is filed only to arm twist the petitioners 1 and 2 and also another against whom the case was not taken on file by the lower Court. This is nothing but abuse of process of law. Therefore, the petitioners 1 and 2 cannot be allowed to be harassed by the 1st respondent and this Court is of the opinion that the proceedings in the lower Court cannot be allowed to be proceeded. 5) In the result, the petition is allowed quashing proceedings in C.C. No.835 of 2007 on the file of II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J July 22, 2010 KSH