HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.6214 OF 2009 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the Petitioner/A2 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings in P.R.C. No.4 of 2009, pending on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kamalapuram, Kadapa, registered for offences punishable under Sections 354, 506, 323 and 167 I.P.C. 2. Whereas the petitioner is A2, the respondent No.2 is the complainant in the case. For the sake of convenience, I refer the parties as arrayed in the complaint. 3. The case of the complainant is as follows: A1 in the case was working as the Principal of Sri Saraswathi Junior College, K.Appayapalle Village, Kamalapuram Mandal and her husband was working as Junior Assistant in the said College under A1. A2 was working as the Sub-Inspector of Police at Kamalapuram Police Station. On 08.09.2006, the complainant who was at her house learnt that A1 beat on the cheek of her husband, and kicked her husband (with leg with cheppal) and humiliated him in the office. Then she approached A1 by 04:20 PM and requested A1 to give reason about his attitude towards her husband. A1 replied then “who are you to question me and whether you go from here or not or can I neck out you”, for which the complainant replied “who are you to neck out me”. In turn, A1 abused the complainant in filthy language assaulting her by way of slapping her and further used force outraging her modesty. Besides that A1 caught hold of her right hand and dragged her out from the office while the complainant tried to get out of the clutches of A1, whereas in her efforts, her blouse was torn. As such the complainant felt most ashamed then. A1 also pelted a stone with anger upon the complainant causing abrasion. Then immediately the complainant approached A2 and preferred a report by 04:30 PM on the same day. Further, originally the complaint was referred to the Station House Officer, Kamalapuram, under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. for necessary investigation, on the basis of which the case was registered in Crime No.136 of 2006 under Section 354 I.P.C. on its file. Later, the Station House Officer of the police station i.e., A2 conducted necessary investigation in the case and filed final report holding the case to be false. Then it was filed before the learned Magistrate who thereby issued notice to the complainant and heard the matter. Thereafter, the complainant filed protest petition and sworn statements of the complainant and her witnesses (2) were recorded, on the basis of which the case was taken on file against A1 and A2 by the learned Magistrate. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the complainant that even though the complainant gave the names of two witnesses in the correspondence, namely, Gentem Suguna and Danduboina Keshamma, deliberately A2 failed to examine them as witnesses in the case and therefore, the complainant approached the Superintendent of Police, Kadapa District, who gave necessary instructions to A2 but, still A2 did not examine them in the case and in fact, he did so with the intention of damaging the case of the complainant and hence, he is liable to be prosecuted. 5. On the other hand, the contention of the learned counsel for A2 is that without obtaining necessary sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C., A2 cannot be prosecuted and the allegations made against him are false. 6. The point for consideration is whether sufficient grounds are there to quash the proceedings as prayed for. 7. Prima facie there is material to the effect that A2 failed to examine the said witnesses even though necessary instructions/directions were given to him and as such he screened necessary evidence and further, the question of sanction is necessary if A2 acted in good faith in connection with his official duties. As the circumstances enumerated show that A2 created a false final report without following the necessary instructions or directions given, it appears that Section 197 I.P.C. is not attracted here. At this stage it is not advisable to quash the proceedings without conducting necessary trial. The learned Magistrate while disposing of the matter has to consider all the relevant factors and give final verdict as per law. 8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the presence of A2 is dispensed with till the commencement of the trial in the case. ________________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J December 26, 2011 MD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.6214 OF 2009 December 26, 2011 MD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDRABAD Dated: 26.12.2011 PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.6214 OF 2009 Between: V. Chinna Peddaiah ..... PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and another ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: