THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA Criminal Petition No.5577 of 2007 3rd March, 2010 Between:- V.Surendra Reddy .. Petitioner And The State of A.P. Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad through Inspector of Police, P.S.Malakpet, Hyderabad .. Respondent THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA Criminal Petition No.5577 of 2007 ORDER:- Heard the Counsel. 2. While admitting the Criminal Petition on 28-9-2007 in Crl.M.P.No.4128/2007 this Court granted interim stay. 3. Sri S.V.Bhatt, the learned Counsel representing the petitioner had taken this Court through the specific grounds raised in the Criminal Petition and would maintain that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the First Information Report and the chargesheet cannot be sustained and they are liable to be quashed. The learned Counsel also had taken this Court through the statements made by the witnesses and further pointed out the non-examination of Dr.Krishna Murthy. The learned Counsel would maintain that even if the prosecution to be further proceeded with, it would be a futile exercise since no purpose would be served. 4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor had taken this Court through the contents of the statements and would maintain that it is no doubt true that the allegation made was as against an unknown person but however this is a matter to be gone into at the appropriate stage and hence this is not a fit matter to be interfered with under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter, in short, referred to as 'the Code' for the purpose of convenience). 5. The present Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code praying for quashing of the proceedings in crime No.113/2004, C.C.No.621/2004 on the file of the VII Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Criminal Courts, Nampally, Hyderabad. The said crime was registered vide Cr.No.113/2004 by Police, Malakpet on the alleged complaint of one Raj Kumar made on 28-3-2004 at 20.30 hours alleging that one unknown vehicle dashed his scooter, due to which he and his pillion rider got injuries. Basing on the said complaint, the said crime was registered and placed before the XII M.M., criminal Courts, Hyderabad and cognizance weas taken and the case was numbered as C.C.No.621/2004. 6. It is also the further case of the petitioner the complainant himself admitted in the complaint that unknown vehicle involved in the alleged accident. The Investigating Officer also admitted the fact by way of filing a charge sheet, admitting that no incriminating material available from the scene of offence and also admitted that no panchanama was conducted. The charge sheet is also absent regarding commission of offence except saying an Advocate symbol vehicle involved through enquiry. Further, the charge sheet also lacks the prima facie evidence that who reveals the Advocate symbol and Advocate car involved in the alleged commission of offence. 7. Further it is stated that the facts behind the lodging of a complaint and subsequent things clearly an eye opened for the insurance companies. The complaint was lodged on 28-3-2004 and petitioner was called to the Police Station on 6-4-2004 and confession statement was recorded by force and the photo copy of the insurance was taken by the police. The injured persons filed two M.A.O.P.Nos.1103/04 and 1104/04 on 12-4-2004 for one lakh each respectively. This clearly show the intention behind the lodging of the complaint and the Court ordered notice and the petitioner herein filed a counter in the matter on 16-11-2004 and denied the accident. The Tribunal adjourned the matter for framing of issues on 6-4-2005. The interesting point is though the F.I.R./chargesheet filed under Section 337 of the Indian Penal Code, but the O.Ps., were filed under Sections 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code respectively. The matter could not placed before the Court for framing of issues and it came to know that, it was decreed by way of Lok Adalath on 18-3-2005 even without giving any notice to the petitioner, who was contesting the matter on the sole ground that fraud had been played by the complainant with collusion in order to claim the insurance amounts on the name of the petitioner’s car. 8. Further it is stated that the petitioner herein challenged that the Lok Adalat Awards before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India on the sole ground that Award was passed contrary to Section 20(1) of the A.P.Legal Services Authority Act. This Court ordered an enquiry on the allegations through the Chief Judge, CCC, Hyderabad. The Chief Judge also submitted a report admitting that the MA.O.Ps were transferred to Lok Adalat from the Chief Judge’s Court even obtaining permission from the learned Judge. After due enquiry, C.R.P.Nos.2261 and 2262 of 2005 were allotted by this Court after setting aside the Lok Adalat Awards and directed for fresh adjudication on its merits. The petitioner challenged the Award under Article 227 only to save the public exchequer trying to misuse by way of car insurance by the complainant with collusive effort of interested persons. 9. It is also stated that right through and all through the contention of the petitioner being a responsible citizen in order to save the injured on humanitarian grounds. The petitioner on 28-3-2004 at around 1.30 p.m., was going to Dilsukhnagar from Ashok Nagar to pick up his wife who attended APPSC Group I Examination at Dilsukhnagar and while passing through Moosarambagh, the petitioner noticed that the complainant and another person were lying on the road with injuries and nobody was attending on them or taking them to a hospital for medical aid, being an Advocate, the petitioner picked them up along with Dr.Krishna Murthy to the nearby Hospital. It is also stated that on the request of the Hospital staff, the petitioner gave his visiting card and furnished his details which appear to have been misused by the complainant for making the false claim on assertions with malafide intention. The said Krishna Murthy is close friend of L.W.4 and was the precise reason, he lifted the injured persons in his car along with the petitioner to the nearby hospital. 10. Further it is stated that the other fact of the case is one Mr.Kaushal Kumar, claiming as Investigation Report on behalf of the Insurance Company submitted a report to the Insurance Company in order to file it in the pending O.Ps., to take the advantage. The report of the Advocate is misleading one. He gave a report regarding C.C.No.621/2004 was admitted by the petitioner herein and paid the quantum of fine amount imposed by the Court and also stated the case has been closed. This is nothing but playing fraud on the Court by the complainant, investigating reporter with clear collusion. 11. Further it is also stated that after four years of institution of the case, the trial Court issued NBW against the petitioner on 9-7-2007. That fact came to know only on 16-9-2007. The petitioner filed an application under Section 70(2) of the Code to recall the NBW and it was recalled on 8-9-2007 with conditions. Then, it came to know that NBW was issued on the report of the police, claiming that the petitioner vacated the house. Absolutely, it is a false report, the petitioner is residing in the very same premises for the last seven years, the learned Judge even without verification issued NBW. After recalling the NBW, the matter is posted on 1-10-2007 for further enquiry. Thus, in such circumstances, the present Criminal Petition is filed praying for quashing of the proceedings aforesaid. 12. This Court had carefully gone through the material placed before this Court, the statements of the witnesses in particular. As can be seen from the material available on record, there is no nexus or connecting link of the incident with the petitioner. In the absence of any acceptable material to further proceed with these proceedings would be a futile exercise. In the light of the same, the proceedings specified supra are hereby quashed. 13. The Criminal Petition is accordingly allowed. ______________________ Justice P.S.Narayana 3rd March, 2010 smr