THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARA CRIMINAL PETITION No.4551 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner/A2 who is an advocate at Tenali, is accused of offences punishable under Sections 448, 354, 509, 323/34 and 120-B I.P.C., along with others. Private complaint filed by the 1st respondent was forwarded to the Police for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. After registration of the complaint as Crime No.58 of 2007 of Tenali II Town Police Station and after investigation, the Police filed final report referring the case as false. Thereupon, the 1st respondent filed Protest Petition before the Magistrate and after enquiry in the protest petition, the case was registered as P.R.C.No.2 of 2009. 2. There is civil dispute between husband of the 1st respondent by name Sanka Udaya Bhaskar on one hand and A1 and A3 on the other hand with regard to sharing of property left by his father who died in the year 2003. It is alleged that father of Udaya Bhaskar executed a will before his death. A2 is advocate for A1 and A3 in that civil Suit O.S.No.24 of 2007, on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Tenali. It is alleged that on 03.04.2007 at about 12:15 hours, when A2 went to house of A3 in order to inform his client about next date of adjournment in civil Suit, Udaya Bhaskar, who was sitting in the shop situated in front of the house, abused A2 in filthy language for taking much interest in the civil Suit and threatened him with dire consequences and stabbed him on left side of chest with knife causing a small bleeding injury. Crime No.34 of 2007 under Sections 324 and 506 I.P.C. was registered against Udaya Bhaskar who is stated to be absconding. 3. While so, on 13.04.2007, A3 gave report against Udaya Bhaskar alleging that Udaya Bhaskar and two others attacked him and attempted to kill him by beating him with rods and sticks. On that report, another Crime No.39 of 2007 under Section 307/34 I.P.C. was registered. 4. The present P.R.C.No.2 of 2009 which arises out of Crime No.58 of 2007 is the third crime in the series. It is alleged by the 1st respondent/de facto complainant that on 01.04.2007, at about 8:30 P.M., A1 to A9 trespassed into her house and abused her in filthy and vulgar language and that suddenly, A2 who is an Advocate, interfered and asked others not to indulge in unnecessary talk with the 1st respondent and instigated others to catch hold of the 1st respondent’s tuft of hair and beat her by removing her clothes and by abusing her as bitch and that thereupon, the other accused caught hold of her hair, bent her down, torn her blouse, pulled her saree and beat her indiscriminately and that while going away, A2 cautioned the 1st respondent saying that even if she lodges report to the Police, the Police will not take any action against him and if necessary, he would go to any extent also. When the Magistrate referred the said complaint to the Police for investigation, the Police filed report referring the case as false on the ground that no independent witnesses supported version of the complainant and hence there is no prima facie evidence to show the offence. It is not for the Police or the Investigating Officer to judge a case and to discharge the functions as if they are judicial officers. It is the duty of the Investigating Officer to collect evidence and to place the collected evidence before the Magistrate and it is for the Magistrate or the Judge, as the case may be, to assess the evidence and to come to a conclusion whether the case is true or false. It is too much for an Investigating Officer to conclude that the case is false on the ground that no independent witnesses came forward to support the case. Assessment of evidence and sifting of evidence is not the domain of investigation. Therefore, the Magistrate after conducting enquiry under Section 200 Cr.P.C., having regard to the allegations made by the 1st respondent, took the case on file for the above offences against the accused, including A2. It cannot be said that the present case is a counter blast for the previous crime Nos. 34 of 2007 and 39 of 2007. The Police observed that even crime No.39 of 2007 appears to be a false one. It is for the Court to decide truth or falsity of a case and not for the Police Officer by sifting evidence. 5. Before parting with this case, this Court is constrained to observe that in case an Advocate restricts himself with his professional work instead of identifying with the party, he will not be landing in criminal cases. There was no necessity for A2 to go to A1 to the disputed house to inform the date of adjournment on 03.04.2007. Having regard to totality of the circumstances, I am of the opinion that A2 being an Advocate is no special ground for quashing the complaint in this case against him. The case P.R.C.No.2 of 2009 is a fit case for trial and it cannot be interfered with in this criminal petition. 6. Hence, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ______________________________ JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU Dt:22.12.2011 ysk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4551 of 2009 Dt:22.12.2011 ysk