HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.2087 of 2008 Date : 16.11.2011 Between : Aitabathula Srirama Chandra Murthy & others. …..Petitioners And State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Public Prosecutor & another. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.2087 of 2008 ORDER : This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.69 of 2007 on the file of the learned I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Amalapuram. The aforesaid case is registered based on the private complaint filed by the 2nd respondent/complainant. In the complaint, it is alleged that on 31.08.2005, at about 12.30 Noon, when the complainant was watering the coconut plant planted by her husband, accused Nos.1 to 3 rushed to her and accused No.1 abused her. When the complainant questioned the vulgar language used by accused No.1, he further abused her in unparliamentary language. Accused Nos.1 to 3 also forcibly tried to remove the coconut plant. When the complainant objected for such removal, accused No.1 caught hold of the tuft of the hair of the complainant, due to which, she fell down. Then, accused Nos.1 to 3 kicked her in the stomach, and thus, they outraged her modesty in public. It is further complained that when the husband of the complainant tried to save the complainant, accused Nos.4 and 5 rushed to the scene of offence and poured chilly power on the complainant and her husband. Complainant further alleged that accused No.1 beat her on the left shoulder with a stick, while accused Nos.4 and 5 beat her with a stick on the fingers of both hands, and that in the said incident, the complainant and her husband suffered bleeding injuries. It is stated that on filing of complaint before the Police, they were referred to the Area hospital, Amalapuram, for treatment and LW-8 treated the complainant and her husband under Medico Legal Case Nos.3577 and 3578, and inspite of the same, no case has been registered by the Police. With the aforesaid averments, alleging that inspite of their complaint before the Police, the Police have not registered any case in view of the political influence of the accused, a private complaint is filed, on which, case is registered against accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences under Sections 354, 506 read with 34 of IPC, and for the offence under Section 324 of IPC against accused Nos.4 and 5. When the matter was referred to the Police for investigation, it appears, Police have filed a final report against the complainant, against which, a protest petition is filed by the complainant, and upon examining the protest petition, the learned Magistrate has passed order on 9th February 2007, taking cognizance of the case for the offences under Sections 509 and 324 read with 34 of IPC against accused Nos.1 to 5. In this petition, it is contended by the learned counsel for petitioners that there was an incident on the same day, in which, the husband and son of the complainant were accused, with reference to which, the husband of the complainant and her son were tried before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Amalapuram in Sessions Case No.22 of 2005, and they were convicted for the offences under Sections 307 and 324 of IPC. It is stated that there was no reference to the incident alleged in the present complaint during the trial in the aforesaid case, as such, the present case is foisted in view of the prosecution launched against the son and husband of the complainant. In this case, it is to be noticed that a perusal of the complaint itself discloses that when accused Nos.1 to 3 beat the complainant and her husband, on filing Police complaint, they were referred to the Area hospital, Amalapuram for treatment and LW-8 treated the complainant and her husband in medico legal case Nos.3577 and 3578. Though Police have filed report as a mistake of fact, when a protest petition is filed by the complainant, by recording valid reasons, cognizance is taken against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 509 and 324 read with 34 of IPC. In view of the reasons recorded in the order passed by the learned Magistrate, merely on the ground that on the same day there was an offence committed by the husband and son of the complainant and they were prosecuted before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Amalapuram in Sessions Case No.22 of 2005, that by itself, is no ground to quash the proceedings. If the petitioners are innocent, they can prove their innocence before the learned Magistrate. In view of the reasons recorded by the learned I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Amalapuram, on the protest petition filed by the complainant, I do not find any ground to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners. For the aforesaid reasons, this criminal petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. ___________________ 16th November 2011 R. SUBHASH REDDY, J ajr