IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.8776 of 2008 DATE: 16.11.2011 Between: T.Sumitramma and others …… Petitioners And The State of A.P., rep. by 4th town P.S. Kurnool through State Public Prosecutor and another …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.8776 of 2008 ORDER : The petitioners 1 to 14/A-1 to A-14 are accused of offences punishable under Sections 147, 324/149 I.P.C. The offence took place on 08.10.2006 at the house of 2nd respondent/defacto-complainant. The 2nd respondent is stated to be a practising advocate at Kurnool. A-1 is no other than wife of the 2nd respondent’s brother. While the 2nd respondent, his father and other family members are residing in first floor of the house, A-1 is residing separately in ground floor of the same house. At the instance of A-1, case in Crime No.91/2006 is registered against her husband, A-1 and other family members for offences including one under Section 498-A I.P.C. Though it is stated by the petitioners’ counsel that three other cases are also pending against family members of the 2nd respondent filed by three other daughters-in-law of the same family, the said fact is irrelevant for the purpose of this criminal petition. It is alleged that the 2nd respondent and his family members were harassing A-1 and hurling threats to A-1 to withdraw Crime No.91/2006. In that connection, relations of A-1 assembled at the house on the date of offence in order to question the 2nd respondent’s family members about their further harassment of A-1 for withdrawal of Crime No.91/2006. At that time, the incident took place. In that incident, A-3, A-4 and A-5 herein sustained injuries. On report given by A-3, the police registered Crime No.160/2006 against 2nd respondent and 7 other family members of him. After investigation, the police filed charge sheet against 8 persons including the 2nd respondent herein in Crime No.160/2006. 2) On the same date of giving report in Crime No.160/2006, the 2nd respondent also gave another report to the police and it was registered as crime No.161/2006 under Section 324/34 I.P.C. After investigation, the police filed final report/referred charge sheet in Crime No.161/2006 referring the case as false. Thereupon, the 2nd respondent filed protest petition in the lower Court mentioning the names of A-1 to A-15 as the persons who participated in the offence. After enquiry, the lower Court took the case on file against A-1 to A-14 and issued summonses to them. 3) It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that the 2nd respondent being an advocate had roped in as many as 14 accused in this case and they are all relations of A-1. A-2 and A- 3 are A-1’s paternal uncles and A-9 is mother of A-1 and all the other accused are relations of A-1. A-2 is working as section officer in A.P. Secretariat at Hyderabad. All the other accused are residents of different villages in Kurnool district. In original report given by the 2nd respondent to the police, it is stated by him that A-1 along with her relations numbering 15 participated in the offence and caused injuries to him and another. The 2nd respondent did not specify names of any persons other than A-1 in his report. A-2 to A-14 are all relations of A-1 and not outsiders or strangers to the family. If all of them were present in the quarrel resulting in injuries to both the parties, the 2nd respondent would have certainly identified the other accused either by their names or by their relationships with A-1. Instead the 2nd respondent being an advocate had reserved scope for him in F.I.R by stating 15 other relations of A-1 participated in the offence. I am of the opinion that roping in 14 persons in this case is nothing short of abuse of process of law. The lower Court while taking the case on file did not give any reasons for differing from the conclusion of the investigating officer. The lower Court did not give any reasons in the order dated 23.09.2008 as to why cognizance of the case was taken against A-1 to A-4. The order of taking cognizance passed by the lower Court is cryptic and bald. 4) In any event, even as per final report of the investigating officer in Crime No.161/2006, the 2nd respondent and another sustained simple injuries in the course of the same transaction. On combined reading of F.I.Rs and other material in Crime Nos.160 and 161/2006, presence of A-1, A-3, A-4 and A-5 at the time of offence cannot be in dispute. As per conclusion of the investigating officer, the 2nd respondent’s party was the aggressor and in that melee the 2nd respondent and another sustained injuries with sticks and stones handled by themselves. On the other hand, the 2nd respondent attributes the same to the accused party. It is a matter which has to be finally decided after trial by the Magistrate against the appropriate accused. I am of the opinion that impleading of the accused other than A-1, A-3, A-4 and A-5 in this case is not bonafide and is a clear case of abuse of process of law. 5) In the result, the criminal petition is partly allowed quashing proceedings in C.C. No.893 of 2008 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kurnool in so far as the petitioners 2 and 6 to 14/A-2 and A-6 to A-14 are concerned; and the criminal petition is partly dismissed in other respects. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J November 17, 2011 ksh