HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRL.PETITION NO.2603 OF 2009 Date:13.04.2010 Between: K. Rajanikantha Reddy …..Petitioner And: Chakka Narasimha and another …..Respondents. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRL.PETITION NO.2603 OF 2009 ORDER: 1. The petitioner is accused of offences punishable under Sections 342, 352 and 506 IPC in C.C.No.40 of 2009 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kavali. The 1st respondent is the defacto- complainant. The petitioner was working as Sub Inspector of Police, Kavali I Town Police Station during the relevant period. 2. When there was theft in house of the first respondent, previously, on report given by the 1st respondent, I Town Police, Kavali registered the same as case in Crime No.76 of 2007 for offences under Sections 457 and 380 IPC. After investigation, the police referred that crime as ‘mistake of fact’ and filed final report before the Magistrate to that effect, after giving notice to the 1st respondent. Thereupon the 1st respondent filed Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.76 of 2007 by way of protest against the police referring his case as ‘mistake of fact’. The Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class disposed of the petition directing the police to make further investigation in that crime. It is alleged that on 03.12.2008 at about 10.00 a.m., the accused who is the Sub Inspector of Police called the 1st respondent to the police station and abused him in filthy language addressing him in singular and asking the 1st respondent to bring the culprit so that he would think over it. It is further alleged that the accused uttered that the police are not servants of the 1st respondent and that what would the 1st respondent pluck from him and that even if the 1st respondent reports against him, what the court would pluck from him and that the 1st respondent may complain the same to his father (Abba) and that he would push the 1st respondent into cell and that what the 1st respondent would pluck and what the court will pluck. It is further alleged that the accused apart from insulting the 1st respondent, behaved highhandedly towards the 1st respondent by catching hold of the 1st respondent’s shirt and pulling the same and attempting to beat the 1st respondent in order to terrorise the 1st respondent and that the accused directed the 1st respondent to give a statement as per dictation of the accused and sign thereon. It is further alleged that the accused detained the 1st respondent in the police station for about three hours and terrorised him. It is further alleged that the accused stated that inspite of any reports and to whomsoever such reports are given, the accused would see that the 1st respondent would not get back stolen property. It is also alleged that the accused insulted the 1st respondent in the name of his caste (‘Komati’ Caste) and proclaimed that he would show his power. It is also alleged that when G. Krishna who accompanied the 1st respondent to the police station and who was waiting outside the police station, interfered and tried to pacify the accused, the accused asked G. Krishna to instruct the 1st respondent to be cautious or otherwise the 1st respondent would disappear. It is stated that the 1st respondent was elected as Municipal Councillor of Kavali Town Municipality on two occasions and that he was a Member in Chamber of Commerce at the State level for four years and that he was also Town President of Telugu Desam Party for some period and that he is presently State President of Commerce Wing of Telugu Desam Party and that the 1st respondent’s late father was a Freedom Fighter and also former Chairman of Kavali Municipal Council. 3. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that false case was foisted by the 1st respondent against the petitioner thinking that the petitioner was not evincing interest in detecting theft case. Truth or falsity of contents of the complaint given by the 1st respondent, cannot be decided in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is for the Magistrate in whose court C.C.No.40 of 2009 is pending, to decide the said question of fact after both the parties leading evidence during trial. 4. It is further contended that since the alleged offence was said to have been committed by the accused during the course of his official duty as Sub Inspector of Police, the lower court should not have taken cognizance of the private complaint filed by the 1st respondent without the 1st respondent obtaining sanction for prosecution from the appropriate Government under Section 197 Cr.P.C. The petitioner’s counsel placed reliance on Municipal Corporation of Visakhapatnam v. State of Andhra Pradesh[1] of this Court in support of his contention. In the reported decision, the Municipal Commissioner was not impleaded as accused person in his personal capacity and he was shown as representing Municipal Corporation of Visakhapatnam. Further, the Municipal Commissioner was also not physically present at the scene when the alleged offence of demolition of unauthorised structure was stated to have been carried out by other Municipal Officers and employees. In those circumstances, that decision was rendered by this Court. That decision has absolutely no application to facts of the present case, which were narrated above. Though, it may be part of official duty of the accused to call the 1st respondent to make enquiry during investigation as the 1st respondent happened to be the victim/defacto-complainant in theft case. At the same time, it cannot be said that it is part of official duty of the accused to detain him for three hours in the police station and to abuse him in filthy language and to man handle him by dragging him holding his shirt and attempting to beat him and to insult him. Having regard to detailed overts acts attributed to the accused by the complainant in the private complaint, it is not a case which requires sanction for prosecution of the accused under Section 197 Cr.P.C. I see absolutely no merits in this petition. 5. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. ____________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J. Date:13.04.2010. Gk. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRL.P.NO.2603 of 2009 Date:13.04.2010 Gk. [1] 2010 (1) ALD (Crl.) 419 (AP)