THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.574 OF 2008 Dated : 18.01.2010 Between : Kesireddy Kasi Reddy ….. Petitioner/A.9 a n d 1) Paluri Padmavathi 2) The State of A.P. ….. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.574 OF 2008 ORDER : This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner-A.9 seeking to quash the order, dated 08.01.2008, passed in P.R.C.No.3 of 2008 by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Koilkunta, Kurnool District, wherein the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance against the petitioner along with other accused for the offence punishable under Sections 148, 302 and 506 read with Section 149 I.P.C. 2) Heard. 3) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned Magistrate without considering the material on record placed before him, which reveals that the petitioner was not present at the scene of offence at the time of offence and with regard to the same an enquiry was also conducted by the Superintendent of Police and thereafter only his name was deleted, has erroneously taken cognizance against the petitioner. 4) There is no dispute of the facts that the name of the petitioner is found in the complaint and the statements recorded by the Police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. would also reveal the participation of the petitioner in the offence. Such being the case, there is nothing wrong on the part of the Magistrate in taking cognizance against the petitioner. 5) The learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that there was sufficient material before the learned Magistrate including videographic evidence to show that the petitioner was not present at the scene of offence as he was present elsewhere at that time and as such the learned Magistrate ought to have considered the same before taking cognizance. 6) I am not inclined to accept this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. If this kind of practice is allowed, every accused would go on taking such kind of pleas and would not allow the case to proceed further. There are other stages where the petitioner-accused can put forth his case about his not being present at the scene of offence and there being no satisfactory material against him. 7) Considering the circumstances of the case, the petition is dismissed giving opportunity to the petitioner to file a discharge petition before the Sessions Judge, if charges are not framed, and it is needless to say that he is at liberty to take the plea of alibi and produce necessary defence evidence in support of the same before the Sessions Judge. ______________________ P.SWAROOP REDDY, J 18th January, 2010 SUR