HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.615 of 2007 DATED 25.01.2010 Between: N.Ram Mohan and 2 others … Petitioners And The Police Station of Saroornagar and another … Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.615 of 2007 ORDER: This petition is filed by the accused Nos.1 to 3 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing F.I.R in Crime No.7/2007 of Saroornagar Police Station, Rangareddi District relating to offence punishable under Section 384 I.P.C. 2) The 2nd respondent/defacto-complainant previously worked under A-1 and stopped working in A-1’s shop since one month prior to date of the offence. It is alleged that on 18.12.2006 at about 12.00 noon A-1 to A-3 and their associates took away the 2nd respondent from his present place of work to house of A-2 and that he was beaten and he was illegally detained and that after threatening him the accused snatched M.O.U dated 01.11.2006 relating to a flat in Abdullapur and also obtained his signatures on some blank papers, blank pronote, five cheques of Andhra Bank and five cheques of Karur Visya Bank and that the accused also threatened the 2nd respondent to pay Rs.9,50,000/- to A-1 within 48 hours and that thereafter the 2nd respondent was left out at about 5.30 P.M on the same date. The police registered case on basis of the said report of the 2nd respondent. 3) It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that though the alleged offence was on 18.12.2006, the 2nd respondent gave report to the police on 02.01.2007, merely after 17 days of the alleged occurrence and that there is no explanation therefor. On the other hand, the 2nd respondent’s counsel contended that the 2nd respondent gave complaint to the Station House Officer, Saroornagar Police Station on 20.12.2006 itself and that the police did not register the said complaint and that subsequently the police obtained report dated 02.01.2007 and registered the same and that there is no much delay in giving report to the police. 4) It is further contended by the petitioners’ counsel that A-1 filed civil suits in O.S. Nos.2/2007 and 3/2007 on the file of Senior Civil Judge Court, Wanaparthy for recovery of money on basis of two promotes and that A-1 also filed two criminal cases against the 2nd respondent when cheques issued by the 2nd respondent were bounced and that the 2nd respondent gave the present report to the police as a counter blast for the said civil suits and criminal cases and that the present report was given by the 2nd respondent to serve as a defence for him in the civil suits and in the cheque bounce cases. At this stage there is no material to show when the civil suits were filed and when the cheques issued by the 2nd respondent were presented and were bounced and when criminal cases were filed against the 2nd respondent for offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. As the matter now stands, the petitioners 1 to 3 approached the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad and obtained anticipatory bail orders. It is for the police to make investigation about allegations contained in first information report and to collect evidence and to come to any conclusion in one way or the other. It would be too early to conclude whether report given by the 2nd respondent to the police is false one or true one. Such exercise cannot be done in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The alleged delay in giving report to the police will also be taken into consideration by the police during investigation for coming to any conclusion about truth of this case. At this stage I do not find any valid or legal reasons to quash F.I.R at the threshold of the case. 5) In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J January 25, 2010 KSH