THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5031 OF 2004 Date:25.11.2009 Between: Gude Pushpa and 23 others ……Petitioners And: The State, rep. By Public Prosecutor and another ….. Respondents. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5031 OF 2004 ORDER: This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing proceedings in C.C.No.507 of 2004 of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Tadepalligudem relating to the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 323, 427, 447, 430, 506 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Originally the 2nd respondent filed private complaint before the Magistrate for the above offences against the petitioners. The Magistrate referred private complaint to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and report. After investigation, the police filed final report before the Magistrate referring the case as one which is of civil nature. Thereupon, the 2nd respondent filed protest petition before the Magistrate. The Magistrate enquired recorded sworn statements of the 2nd respondent and two witness produced by him and took the case on file and issued summons to A-1 to A-25 including who are the petitioners herein. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that the case is one of civil nature between the parties and there are civil proceedings and execution proceedings pending in respect of the same subject matter. Simply because civil proceedings are pending between the parties, one cannot resort to high handed methods resulting in criminal offences. The question to be considered in this petition is whether the complainant/2nd respondent did not make out any criminal offence in the complaint and in the protest petition, taking the allegations therein for granted for the sake of argument. Relying upon J.Sumana Vs. Endluri Aseerwadamma and another[1] K. Laxm Reddy and others Vs. State of A.P and another[2] of this Court, it is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that the Magistrate should have given reasons while taking cognisance of the case when final report filed by the police for referring the case is there on record. Even though reasons are expected to be given by the Magistrate in those circumstances for taking cognisance of the case, this Court will not expect the Magistrate to pronounce prima facie judgment at that stage. In the case on hand, the Magistrate while taking cognisance of the case stated that sworn statements of the 2nd respondent/complainant and his two witness B. Satyanarayana and K. Ramachandra Raju revealed that prima facie case is made out against all the accused for the alleged offences and that in the interest of justice, it is just and proper to take cognisance of the case against all the accused under the said penal sections of law. Thus, the Magistrate has applied mind before taking cognisance of the case after recording sworn statements of the complainant and his witnesses. I find that there is sufficient compliance by the Magistrate with regard to his legal duty of giving reasons for taking cognisance. It is contended that in E.P.No.185 of 2002 in O.S.No.314 of 1996, the 2nd respondent did not allege commission of this offence on 11.12.2002 even though the 2nd respondent had referred to certain incident which took place on that day. The respondents/J.Drs in E.P.No.185 of 2002 are the District Collector, the Mandal Revenue Officer and Sarpanch of Mandalaparru Gram Panchayat. A-1 herein is no other than the Sarpanch. Giving details of criminal offences in civil proceedings may not arise at all. At the same time, in para-2 of the affidavit filed in E.P.No.185 of 2002, it was stated that on 11.12.2002 when the Mandal Revenue Officer visited A.B.C.D Puntha on the representation of the 1st petitioner and Gadiraju Subba Raju (4th petitioner), M.P.T.C Member and their supporters nearly 25 in number dug a drain in A.B.C.D Puntha upto irrigation bode with procainer at 7.30 p.m in spite of the 2nd respondent tried to obstruct them. Thus, not only from the complaint but also from the execution proceedings, there is no much dispute about happening of an incident at scene of the offence on 11.12.2002. The question is as to how the said incident took place and who participated and who were victims therein. It is a matter of evidence to be collected by the Magistrate during trial of the criminal case. At this stage, I do not find any valid and legal reasons to come to any conclusion that no prima facie case is made out against any of the petitioners/accused herein. In the result, the petition is dismissed. ___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU,J 25th November, 2009 Gk. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5031 OF 2004 Date:25.11.2009 Gk. [1] 2003 (1) A.L.D (Crl.) 252 [2] 2003 (1) A.L.D (Crl.) 35