HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No. 626 of 2008 ORDER: This petition has been filed U/Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. by the petitioners herein, who are A-7,A-6 and A-8 respectively in C.C. No.427 of 2007 on the file of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Bheemunipatnam, Visakhapatnam District, to quash the proceedings therein, so far as they are concerned. 2. The respondent No.2-complainant presented a report on 09-07-2004 before the Station House Officer, Bheemunipatnam alleging inter alia that on 07.07.2004 while he was levelling the site admeasuring 169 sq.yds situated in Sy.No. 30/8, Patta No.11 of Bottavanipalem, Mahduravada, purchased by him on 28-8-1996 from S.Radhakrishna, for a total sale consideration of Rs.25,400/- ; Pothina Ramana, (Potti Ramana) (A-1), Nagothi Chinna Rao (A-2), Botta Ramu (A-3), Botta Lakshmana (A-4) Botta Simhachalam (A-5) trespassed into his land armed with deadly weapons and threatened him with dire consequences and forced him to vacate the site. In the said process, they attempted to beat him and A-1 Pothina Ramana (Potti Ramana) pushed him on the ground. Basing on the said complaint, LW-10 K.K.B.Vijayanath, Sub Inspector of Police, Bheemunipatnam Police Station, registered a case in Cr.No. 210 of 2004 for the offence punishable u/secs. 447, 323 and 506 R/w. 34 IPC and issued First Information Report. During the course of investigation, he examined 9 witnesses and recorded their statements U/sec. 161 Cr.P.C. and filed a charge sheet against 12 accused persons including the petitioners herein in the court of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Bheemunipatnam. The learned Magistrate took the charge sheet on file as CC No.427 of 2007 wherein the petitioners herein have been arrayed as A-7,A-6 and A8 respectively. Hence this petition with a prayer stated supra. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent - State. 4. Despite notice being served on the 2nd respondent - defacto complainant, she did not choose to enter appearance either in person or through counsel. 5. Leaned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that except the bald allegation against the petitioners herein in the charge sheet, no specific overt acts have been attributed against them either in the FIR or in the subsequent statements recorded during the course of investigation. A further submission has been made that P.Venkata Rao-A-10 in the above Calender Case approached this court by filing a criminal petition being Crl.P.No. 5806 of 2007 with a prayer to quash the proceedings therein against him and the said application came to be allowed on 03-12-2007. It is also submitted that the case of the petitioners herein also stands on the same footing as that of A-10 P.Venkata Rao and hence they also deserves to be discharged from the case. 6. Learned Addl.Public Prosecutor opposed the application. 7. I have gone through the FIR and the charge sheet averments. 8. The names of the petitioners do not find place in the FIR. Even the statements recorded during the course of investigation, as reflected in the charge sheet do not indicate any specific overtacts of the petitioners. A-10 P.Venkat Rao, who is similarly situated as that of these petitioners, approached this court by filing a criminal petition being Crl.P.No. 5806 of 2007 and the said petition came to be allowed on 3-12-2007. Para No.5 of the said order reads thus: “5. A perusal of the complaint and charge sheet would go to show that the name of the petitioner/A1-0 is nowhere referred to. No specific overtact is attributed against the petitioner/A10 nor he was involved in any act attracting the ingredients of the offences alleged. In the complaint, A-1 and three others are specifically named and vague allegation is made that the offences were committed by the named persons and their men. During investigation also no incriminating material was gathered against A-1 and no specific allegation is made against him in the charge sheet, except alleging that the one the instigation of A-1and his men, A-2 to A13 formed themselves into unlawful assembly and committed trespass and other offences. In the absence of any specific allegations against A-10 nor any specific overt act being attributed against him showing his involvement and in the absence of any incriminating material against the petitioner attracting the ingredients of the offences alleged, it is considered that further proceedings against A-10 in CC No. 427 of 2007 are unwarranted and are liable to be quashed.” 9. Since the case of the petitioners also stands in the same footing as that of A-10 in CC No. 427 of 2007, this petition deserves to be allowed. 10. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed quashing the proceedings against the petitioners –A-7,A-6 and A-8 respectively in CC No. 427 of 2007 on the file of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Bheemunipatnam, Visakhapatnam District ___________ 22-07-2010 Mjl/* HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No. 626 of 2008 Dated: 22-07-2010 Mjl/*