HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.6430 of 2009 DATED:19.08.2009 Between: Vabhaneni Venkateswara Rao .. Petitioner And Medikonda Muktheswara Rao and another .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.6430 of 2009 ORDER: Heard Sri P.Vamsheedhar Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri C.Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.Dhananjaya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the second respondent. No notice is being ordered to the first respondent, while disposing of the matter at the stage of admission, as in the criminal petitions filed at the instance of accused Nos.2 to 4, this Court had passed orders on merits without notice to the first respondent and as the first respondent gave the report only as an employee of the Police Department, while the State is represented by the learned Public Prosecutor herein through the second respondent. The petitioner along with three others faced prosecution in C.C.No.582 of 2005 on the file of the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada for the alleged offences under Sections 447, 427 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, on the allegation that the accused trespassed into the land which is in possession and enjoyment of the Police Department and demolished the fencing around the site, dug the land to an extent of one foot depth and damaged cement tiles with the proclainer. However, the charge sheet itself states that the accused did so stating that the Roads and Buildings Department gave the contract of road alignment work which they were carrying. In Crl.P.No.2693 of 2007 this Court ordered on 25.04.2007 that the proceedings against the fourth accused be quashed as the fourth accused only accompanied the accused Nos.1 to 3 and did nothing further. At the instance of the second and third accused, this Court quashed the proceedings against them in the same case in Crl.P.No.476 of 2009, dated 01.05.2009. This Court noted that the accused were alleged to have disturbed the fencing of the site of the Police Department but the accused did so as a part and parcel of road widening. This Court opined that no offence can be said to be constituted against the accused, as they were discharging public functions. The petitioner rightly claims that he is also entitled to the benefit of the same logic and after quashing of the proceedings against the accused Nos.2 to 4, any further proceedings against him will be an abuse of process of law and his claims have to be straight away accepted. Therefore, the further proceedings in C.C.No.582 of 2005 on the file of the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada against the petitioner are quashed and the Criminal Petition is allowed accordingly. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J 19th August 2009 KH