THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2925 OF 2009 ORDER: The petitioner/A.19 is accused of offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 302, 324, 326, 379 IPC in P.R.C.No.13 of 2009 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Gudivada. He happens to be a practicing Advocate at Gudivada. Even as per the prosecution case, he did not participate in person in the offence of murder of the deceased, but is stated to have participated in the conspiracy preceding the murder. The petitioner’s counsel urged this Court to quash proceedings in P.R.C.No.13 of 2009 on ground Nos.1, 3, 5 and 7 enunciated in UNION OF INDIA VS. B.R. BAJAJ[1] by the Supreme Court, which are as follows:- “ (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” It is contended that the petitioner was Advocate in civil matters for A.5 to A.7 and that for the sin of the same, he was falsely implicated in this case. Truth or otherwise of the prosecution case cannot be decided in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as it is a question of fact. It is further contended by the petitioner’s counsel that one Katari Eswar Kumar (former M.L.A of Gudivada constituency) and another were deleted by the police while filing the charge sheet even though their names figured as accused persons in First Information Report. Deletion of names of two persons while filing charge sheet, cannot be a valid ground for deletion of A.19 also from the charge sheet. It is prosecution case that the deceased belonged to Congress Party and A.9 belongs to Telugu Desam Party and that during panchayat elections, A.1, A.4 to A.14 and A.16 to A.20 supported candidature of A.9’s wife and that in the elections, A.9’s wife was defeated in the hands of the deceased and that since then there has been local political factions between the two groups. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that A.19 does not belong to Moturu village and that he has nothing to do with the village politics at Moturu and that he has been only an Advocate practicing at Gudivada. It is further alleged by the prosecution that in pursuance of the common design to do away life of the deceased, A.1, A.4 to A.14 and A.16 to A.20 met in the house of A.4 on 21.07.2008 and 22.07.2008 and that A.1 who had already hired and arranged gundas to assassinate the deceased with the financial support of the other accused, chalked out a plan to do away life of the deceased and that after due deliberations, A.1, A.4 to A.14 and A.16 to A.20 conspired together to do away life of the deceased. Thus, allegation against A.19 is about his participation in the conspiracy which is stated to have taken place on 21.07.2008 and 22.07.2008 in A.4’s house at Moturu. Witness numbers 9 and 11 cited by the prosecution speak about the said meetings and details of those meetings which took place in the house of A.4. It may not be proper for this Court to evaluate their statements in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. This Court has to consider their statements on their face value. As per their statements, the meetings took place at 9.00 A.M. and 11.00 P.M. It is contended that on 22.07.2008 the petitioner attended a Court at Gudivada and argued a case. It appears that A.19 is pleading alibi on the said date in this petition. This Court in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot consider and decide the plea of alibi of the petitioner, as it is a question of fact. It is a matter to be urged before the trial Court and to be decided by the trial Court after recording evidence on both sides. It is further alleged that A.19 was one of the persons who displayed placards and disrupted public meeting on 14.07.2008 when two Honourable Ministers of the State and others attended for laying foundation stone for construction of summer storage tank in the acquired lands, which acquisition is stated to have taken place at the instance of the deceased. The petitioner’s counsel contends that on that day also the petitioner attended Court at Gudivada. This contention also has to be appreciated by the trial Court and cannot be entertained in this petition. On consideration of material on record and the contentions of the parties, I am of the opinion that allegations in the charge sheet and statements of witnesses prima facie disclose offence punishable under Section 120-B IPC against A.19 also and that there is nothing at this stage to show that those allegations are manifestly attended with mala fides or that those allegations are either absurd or inherently improbable. I do not find any valid or legal reason to quash the proceedings in the case insofar as the petitioner/A.19 is concerned. Hence the petition is dismissed. ___________________________________ JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU 23rd September, 2010 bud [1] AIR 1994 Supreme Court 1256