HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION Nos. 4533 of 2009 & 4534 of 2009 COMMON ORDER: These two criminal petitions are filed by A-1 to A5 separately under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of proceedings in PRC No. 10 of 2008 on the file of Judl. Magistrate of the First Class, Badvel, Kadapa District relating to offences punishable under Sections 323, 354, 427, 452, 506 (ii) and 509 /34 IPC. 2. It is contended by the Petitioners’ counsel that this case is filed as a counter blast to crime No. 209 of 2007 of Badvel Urban Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 452 and 506/34 IPC on the report given by A-4 herein and with an intention to arm-twist the petitioners for compromise in crime No. 209 of 2007. All the parties in both the cases are closely related to each other. Dispute between them is only with regard to properties. When A-4 alleged in crime No. 209 of 2007 brining a knife and attempting on his life, the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant herein allegedly outraged of her modestly in this PRC. 3. Crime No.209 of 2007 was registered on 5-11-2007. Whereas this crime No.210 of 2007 was registered by the same police station on the next day i.e, on 6-11-2007. After investigation, the police referred crime No.210 of 2007 as false. It is categorically stated in the final report in crime No.210 of 2007 by the police that at the time of alleged offence, the accused who are the petitioners herein were very much present in the police station. Therefore, the question of happening of the alleged occurrence is totally impossible. Further, the police in their final report stated that an independent witness by name Ramisetty Subbaiah came forward with a version which is against the prosecution case. In spite of that, the lower court on Protest Petition and after recording sworn statements of the 2nd respondent and her witnesses took the case on file for the above offences against the petitioners without applying mind with regard to contents of the final report. The Magistrate, after enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C., has to exercise his /her mind before taking cognizance of the case for the offences alleged against the accused. There is absolutely no contra evidence placed by the 2nd respondent before the Magistrate during enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. to the effect that the accused were in the police station when the alleged offence took place. Simply because complainant and witnesses gave sworn statements about the occurrence making out ingredients for the offence, the Magistrate cannot take cognizance of the case for the offences without examining intrinsic value of those averments. In this case, apart from intrinsic value of statements of the complainant and her witnesses, there is final report of the police to the effect that the accused were present in the police station when the alleged offence in PRC No.10 of 2008 took place. This final report cuts at bottom of the prosecution case herein. 4. In the result, both the petitions are allowed quashing the Proceedings in PRC No.10 of 2008 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Badvel, Kadapa District. _________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Dt. 09-09-2010 Mjl/*