IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.943 OF 2009 Between: Kotcharlakota Syamala Devi & another … PETITIONERS And The State of A.P. & another … RESPONDENTS AND CRIMINAL PETITION No.993 OF 2009 Between: Naishadham Venkateswara Sarma & another … PETITIONERS And The State of A.P. & another … RESPONDENTS This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.943 OF 2009 & 993 OF 2009 COMMON ORDER: 1. These two petitions are filed by A1 to A4 separately who are accused of offences punishable under Sections 325, 324, 323, 506 read with 34 I.P.C. in C.C.No.319 of 2008, on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the I Class, Nuzvid. A1 and A2 are uncles of one Surya Kumari. A3 is aunt of the said Surya Kumari. A4 is son of A3. Surya Kumari was wife of son of the second respondent/ de facto complainant. Surya Kumari died on 29.11.2006 under suspicious circumstances. Therefore, the police booked case against the second respondent and her family members for offence punishable under Section 304B I.P.C. A1 to A4 came on 30.11.2006 after receiving information about death of Surya Kumari. 2. It is alleged that the offence took place at that point of time. Originally, the second respondent gave report to the police against A1 and A2; and the police registered the same as case in Crime No.161 of 2006 of Hanuman Junction Police Station and investigated into the matter and filed final report finding that it is a case of mistake of fact and that the second respondent sustained injuries in scramble among women folk who gathered there. Thereupon, the second respondent filed private complaint in the lower Court against A1 to A4 for the above offences and the lower Court, after recording sworn statements of the second respondent, took the case on file and issued summons to A1 to A4. 3. At this stage, it may be noted that A1 and A3 are witness Nos.1 and 3 in S.C.No.247 of 2008, on the file of X Additional Sessions Judge, Machilipatnam, relating to the offence punishable under Section 304B I.P.C. pending in connection with death of Surya Kumari. On reading all the above facts and circumstances of events, this Court is of the opinion that the present complaint was filed by the second respondent as a counter blast for the case booked against her and her family members and with an intention to arm-twist the petitioners. It is evident that even though original allegations were made against A1 and A2 alone, the second respondent added A3 and A4 also in the private complaint. From this fact, it is clear that the second respondent intended to rope in as many family members of the deceased as possible to achieve her goal. The lower Court should not have taken the complaint on file by mere recording sworn statement of the complainant. The lower Court is expected to apply its mind on sworn statement of the complainant coupled with other material on record including F.I.R. in Crime No.161 of 2006 and final report of the police therein. This Court is of the opinion that the lower Court erred in taking cognizance of the case for the above offences against A1 to A4. This case is nothing but abuse of process of law, intended to achieve personal goals. 4. In the result, both the criminal petitions are allowed quashing proceedings in C.C.No.319 of 2008, on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the I Class, Nuzvid. ______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J August 12, 2010 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.943 OF 2009 & 993 OF 2009 August 12, 2010 KL