HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NOs.4517 & 10751 OF 2009 & TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION NO.30 OF 2010 Date: 31.05.2010 CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4517 OF 2009 Between: Avvaru Subbarayudu …..Petitioner And: The State, rep. by its PP and another …..Respondents. CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10751 OF 2009 Between: Avvaru Subbarayudu …..Petitioner And: The State, rep. by its PP and 2 others …..Respondents. TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION NO.30 OF 2010 Between: Avvaru Subbarayudu …..Petitioner And: The State., rep. by its PP and 87 others …..Respondents. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NOs.4517 & 10751 OF 2009 & TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION NO.30 OF 2010 COMMON ORDER: 1. The petitioner-in-person who is the defacto-complainant in Crime No.97 of 2006 of Venkatagiri Police Station relating to offence punishable under Section 379 IPC filed these three petitions for consecutive reliefs. 2. Criminal Petition No.4517 of 2009 is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for the following relief: “It is therefore I pray that this Court be pleased to order the complainant/respondent No.1 to arrest & interrogate the A- 2 as one of the accused in the Crime No.97 of 2006 under Section 379 IPC and order to the Senior Civil Judge, Gudur, Nellore District to suspense the attachment to my scheduled land on para 5 and pass such other order or orders as this Court may deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.” 3. Criminal Petition No.10751 of 2009 is filed under Sections 481, 482, 427 Cr.P.C and under Sections 9 to 11 of Court Rules and Orders (?) in O.S.No.105 of 2006 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Rajampet, Kadapa District in Criminal Petition No.4518 of 2009 of this Court in Crime No.97 of 2006 of Venkatagiri Police Station, Nellore District for the following relief: “It is therefore I pray that this Court be pleased to order for arrest and interrogate this A-2 and A-3 as accused in the O.S.No.105 of 2006 of Junior Civil Judge, Rajampet, Kadapa District in the Crl.Petition No.4518 of 2009 on the file of this Court in the Crime No.97 of 2006 of Venkatagiri Police Station, Nellore District in the interest of justice.” 4. Transfer of Criminal Petition No.30 of 2010 is filed under Sections 407 and 481 of Cr.P.C in Criminal Petition No.4517 of 2009 for the following relief: “It is therefore I pray that this Court be pleased to transfer of this Crl.Petition in Crl. Petition No.4517 of 2009 under Section 481 and 482 Cr.P.C to be heard on its file for arrest and interrogate the A-10 to A-88 for recover of my case property and involved case property and to seize the accused’s assets, properties, and pass such other order or orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, and in the interests of justice.” 5. In Criminal Petition No.4517 of 2009, apart from the State, one Murali is shown as the 2nd respondent/accused. In Criminal Petition No.10751 of 2009, apart from the State, Thulava Srenivasulu and C. Gunabhushana Reddy who is Thasildar, Rajampet Mandal are shown as respondents 2 and 3/accused. In Transfer Criminal Petition No.30 of 2010, the respondents are shown as the State through Station House Officer, Venkatagiri Police Station, Nellore District, Station House Officer, Hanuman Junction Police Station, Krishna District, Station House Officer, Chikkadapalli Police Station, Hyderabad, Station House Officer, Ontimitta Police Station, Kadapa District, Station House Officer, Mannuru Police Station, Kadapa District, Station House Officer, Satyanarayanapuram Police Station, Vijayawada, Station House Officer, I Town Police Station, Kadapa Town, Station House Officer, I Town Police Station, Nandyala Town, Station House Officer, III Town Police Station, Kurnool Town and also showed other respondents styling them as A-10 to A-88. The said A-10 to A-88 include several police officers by their names, politicians, business- men, professionals, revenue officials, Advocates, Advocate clerks, Public Prosecutors, Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), District Collector, Kadapa District and also Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Gudur. After perusing contents as well as cause title of these petitions, it is surprising as to how these petitions were registered by the Judicial Registry of this Court. I am sure that even in a Junior Civil Judge Court or Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class in Mandal headquarters, Head Clerk/Superintendent or even Bench Clerk of Junior Assistant cadre would not register such absurd and obnoxiously arrayed petitions. It is high time that the Registrar (Judicial) to take steps for not occurring such blunders in the Registry again. When this Court called for report of the Registrar (Judicial) as to how these Criminal Petitions and Criminal M.Ps., were scrutinised and how they were filed/registered and who made the said scrutiny and which officer had registered the criminal petitions having regard to prayers, cause title and contents thereof, the Registrar (Judicial) submitted the said details in tabular form and finally submitted that a perusal of the petitions vis-a-vis the provision of law, the nature of the prayer and the cause title shows that there is omission to check whether petitions as framed are proper and whether they are maintainable and that necessary instructions will be issued to the scrutiny officers to ensure that such lapses shall not reoccur and that no inconvenience is caused to the Honourable Courts. In view of the said submissions of the Registrar (Judicial), I intend to leave the matter without ordering further steps against the erring staff/officers, with fond hope that Scrutiny Section of Registry will improve its work in future. 6. Sections 427 and 481 Cr.P.C., have no application herein. Section 427 Cr.P.C deals with sentencing on offender who is already undergoing sentence for another offence. Section 481 Cr.P.C., deals with prohibition of public servant concerned in a sale not to purchase or bid for the property put up in that sale. Even though Section 407 Cr.P.C is mentioned herein, it has no application herein because there is no enquiry much less trial pending in any Criminal Court and there is no prayer for transfer of any matter which is pending enquiry or trial from one Criminal Court to another Criminal Court. Thus, ultimately these petitions are to be considered under Section 482 Cr.P.C to find out whether the petitioner is entitled to any relief. 7. The petitioner is mixing issues relating to several crimes in several districts pertaining to several persons. Having regard to ultimate prayers in all these three petitions, it is evident that the petitioner is seeking relief in respect of Crime No.97 of 2006 of Venkatagiri Police Station, Nellore District relating to offence under Section 379 IPC. The petitioner as defacto-complainant gave that report to the police against four persons viz., Mahankali Ramesh, Madina Krishna, Madina Srinivasulu and Pasupulati Venkata Dasu. A reading of the said report reveals that dispute between the parties relates to landed property in which it was alleged that there was removal of fencing, removal of pipeline, missing of submersible pump set and damage to crops. Even as per the petitioner’s allegations, there are civil suits pending in different courts. The question of arresting persons and interrogating those persons will not arise automatically on registration of a report given by the defacto-complainant by the police as a crime. The police will resort to arrest of the accused only when prima facie case is found against any of the accused. Till then, on mere report of the defacto-complainant, law does not permit arresting the named accused persons straight away without there being prima facie proof of the allegations made against them. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that these petitions are nothing but sheer abuse of process of this High Court and abuse of provision contained under Section 482 Cr.P.C. I see no merits in all these petitions. 8. In case there is any offence committed during the course of proceedings in civil suit or any other proceedings in any court by letting in false evidence, then it is for the aggrieved party to take steps before the same court where the offence is alleged to have been committed, under Section 340 Cr.P.C. 9. In the result, all the Petitions are dismissed. ____________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU,J. Date:31.05.2010. GK. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NOs.4517 & 10751 OF 2009 & TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION NO.30 OF 2010 Date:31.05.2010 GK.