HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7941 OF 2007 DATE:15.07.2010 Between: Suravaram Sivaprasad and 6 others …… Petitioners. And: The State, rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP., Hyderabad and another …..Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7941 OF 2007 ORDER: 1. The petitioners 1 to 7/A-2 to A-8 are accused of offences punishable under Sections 395, 448, 447, 323, 506 (Part-II)/34 IPC in P.R.C.No.23 of 2007 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Srikakulam. The 2nd respondent/defacto-complainant claims to be tenant of A-1 in the premisis where she is stated to be running hotel business. Previously she filed O.S.No.403 of 2006 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikakulam for declaration of her tenancy right in the premisis and for permanent injunction and filed IA No.775 of 2006 therein under Order XXXIX Rule 1 C.P.C for interim injunction. After enquiry, the civil court dismissed IA No.775 of 2006 holding that the 2nd respondent/defacto-complainant who is the plaintiff/petitioner therein had failed to prove her possession as well as tenancy of the schedule premises, by order dated 04.09.2006. As against the said order, the 2nd respondent/defacto-complainant filed CMA No.25 of 2006 on the file of District Judge, Srikakulam. It is stated that both C.M.A No.25 of 2006 and O.S.No.403 of 2006 are pending. While so, the offence took place on 22.07.2006 in the premisis covered by the civil suit. On report given by the 2nd respondent, case was registered in Crime No.118 of 2006 in II Town Police Station, Srikakulam for offences punishable under Sections 448, 379, 323, 506 (Part-II)/34 IPC. After investigation, the police filed charge sheet in that crime in the court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Srikakulam in C.C.No.55 of 2006 against A-1 and 6 others for offences punishable under Sections 448, 379, 323, 506 (Part- II)/34 IPC on 30.08.2006. While so, the 2nd respondent filed another private complaint before the Magistrate on 30.05.2007 against 13 persons as accused including A-1 and 5 others against whom the police have already filed charge sheet. In the private complaint, the 2nd respondent impleaded the petitioners 1 to 7/A-2 to A-8 also alleging offences punishable under Sections 448, 379, 323, 506 (Part-II)/34 IPC. After enquiry the Magistrate took the private complaint on file and registered the same as P.R.C.No.23 of 2007 and issued summonses to all the accused mentioned therein including the petitioners. Questioning the same, A-2 to A-8 approached this Court with this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 2. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that no where either in report constituting FIR in Crime No.118 of 2006 or in statements recorded by the police under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C, names of A-2 to A-8 came to be mentioned as the persons who participated in the alleged offence and that with an oblique motive, the 2nd respondent has impleaded A-2 to A-8 also in the private complaint filed nearly after one year after the offence. A-2 and A-3 are sons of A-1 and A-4 to A-8 are relations of A-1. It is contended by the 2nd respondent’s counsel that in Crime No.118 of 2006, the 2nd respondent had specifically stated that A-1 and 40 others came to the premisis and indulged in acts of vandalism. If sons of A-1 who are A-2 and A-3 and relations of A-1 who are A-4 to A-8 were also there in that group of 40 persons, then she would not have failed to identify them and to mention their names specifically either in report to the police or in statements recorded by the police during investigation. The fact that names of A-2 to A-8 came on record for the first time on 30.05.2007 when the private complaint was filed before the Magistrate, undoubtedly discloses that it was the intention of the 2nd respondent to harass A-2 to A-8 who are family members and relations of A-1. This Court is of the opinion that prosecution of the petitioners 1 to 7/A-2 to A-8 in P.R.C.No.23 of 2007 is nothing but abuse of process of law and vitiated by oblique motive. 3. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed quashing proceedings in P.R.C.No.23 of 2007 in so far as the petitioners 1 to 7/A-2 to A-8 are concerned. __________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J. Date:15.07.2010. Gk. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7941 OF 2007 Date:15.07.2010 Gk.