HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.2260 of 2008 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the Petitioners/A.1 to A.10 (for short ‘A.1 to A.10’) under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to quash proceedings in P.R.C.No.10 of 2008 on the file of XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, registered for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 341, 307, 427 and 506 read with Section 149 I.P.C. 2. The Petitioners are A.1 to A.10 and the second respondent is the de-facto complainant in the P.R.C. For the sake of convenience, I refer the parties as arrayed in the P.R.C. 3. The prosecution version is as follows: on 26.01.2008 Dr.G.Raja Sekhar (L.W.2), his wife Jeevitha (de-facto complainant) popular cinema artists and their children Miss Shivani and Miss Shivathmika stayed at Bhimavaram in connection with participating in some utsavams. At about 02.00 p.m., there was a press meet at the hotel and then some of them asked Dr.Raja Sekhar about joining Chiranjeevi political party, for which he replied that Chiranjeevi was not possessing any political experience and as such he was not interested in joining that party which statement was telecasted in all the Telugu News channels throughout the state and which was also witnessed by A.1 to A.10 who are fans of Chiranjeevi. Therefore A.1 to A.10 along with others who are the fans of Chiranjeevi got annoyed and decided to attack on the life of Dr.Raja Sekhar. Further while they were returning to home in Hyderabad by car bearing registration No.AP 9 BA 7031 followed by their employees, at KBR park, Banjara Hills, A.1 to A.10 and others were found waiting in ambitious to assault Dr.Raja Sekhar. On seeing it Dr.Raja Sekhar expected some danger to his life and also to the life of his wife and children who were all in the car and diverted the car but A.1 to A.10 chased them by three vehicles up to Traffic Police Station, Panjagutta and then he stopped the car near Panjagutta P.S., and meanwhile A.1 to A.10 came behind the car and pelted stones and attacked the inmates of the car as a result of which the rear glass of the car was broken and then A.1 to A.10 surrounded the car and broke the rear window wind screen with big stones, due to which the wind screen glass pieces hit Miss Shivani (L.W.3) and Miss Shivathmika (L.W.4) who are the children of Dr.Raja Sekhar and also the de-facto complainant and caused them injuries. A.1 to A.10 also broke the front right side wind screen of the car with boulders, as a result of which Dr. Raja Sekhar received injuries on his nose and on his right shoulder and further the child Miss Shivathmika also received injuries on her back. Further the de-facto complainant also received injuries than on her both fore hands. For the assault made by A.1 to A.10, the children started crying and shivering with fear. In order to save themselves from the attack Dr.Raja Sekhar escaped by taking the car towards control room. 4. It is the contention of learned counsel for A.1 to A.10 that absolutely there is no basis to say that A.1 to A.10 attacked the said injured with an intention to kill them and if at all big boulders were used for causing the damage to the car and also killing them, they would have received serious injuries and in-fact if the prosecution version is true prima facie they would not have escaped from the alleged scene of offence. He has referred to copies of wound certificates pertaining to all the four of them which provide that they received very simple injuries. 5. Therefore, it is to be considered as to whether there are circumstances to quash the proceedings so far as Section 307 I.P.C is concerned. “Section 307 I.P.C contemplates: Attempt to murder.-- Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to 1[ imprisonment for life], or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.” 6. It is pertinent to note here that as per the wound certificate copies filed, the de-facto complaint received minor abrasions over both of her fore arms and Dr.Raja Sekhar received abrasion over his nose; Miss Shivani received pain in lower back, all simple in nature; and Miss Shivathmika received no abrasions or injuries. It is pertinent to note here that there is no specific averment that A.1 to A.10 attacked them with an intention to kill them, the factum of which can be ascertained prima facie basing upon the total circumstances of the case. 7. It is significant to note here that according to the prosecution all the petitioners along with others surrounded the car and stayed there for sufficient time and only succeeded in causing damage to the car and also causing some simple injuries to the de-facto complainant and Dr.Raja Sekhar whereas it is contended on behalf of the petitioners that if really they had intention to kill them, they got every opportunity to do so. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that prima facie the ingredients of Section 307 I.P.C are not established. 8. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against A.1 to A.10 so far as offence under Section 307 I.P.C is concerned, are quashed and the committal Court has to re- examine the matter and proceed with the case basing upon the other allegations made only. ___________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J 18-08-2011 vjl