IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4331 of 2009 DATE:20.08.2010 Between: Banuri Srinivas @ Sreen and 2 others …… Petitioners And: Rachuri Madanmohan and another …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4331 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioners 1 to 3/A-1 to A-3 are accused of offences punishable under Sections 448 and 506 I.P.C in C.C. No.140 of 2009 on the file of II Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Lal Bahadur Nagar. It is alleged that there are land disputes between the 1st respondent/defacto- complainant and his cousin Vijaya Lakshmi in respect of land at Srinagar Colony, of extent of 1300 guntas and that A-1 previously came to the 1st respondent’s house and threatened him with dire consequences and that on 29.10.2008 at about 20:10 hours A-3 made phone call from coin box No.08782-264541 to 1st respondent’s cell phone No.98480-76823 and revealed his name as Sudarshan, Secretary of Maoist Party, North Telangana region and talked to him about the land issue and threatened him with dire consequences demanding him to register 1300 guntas of land in the name of Vijaya Lakshmi who is wife of A-1 within four days or otherwise he would kill him. In the entire narration of the prosecution case, there is no role played by A-2. Simply because A-2 is related to A- 1, he was unnecessarily impleaded in this case. In so far as A-3’s alleged role is concerned, the prosecution did not collect any evidence at all. Coin box owner Erram Laxmi (witness No.3 of the charge sheet) in her statement recorded by the police under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C categorically stated that several persons would be talking from her coin box and that she cannot identify or name such persons. Simply because the 1st respondent expressed suspicion on A-1 and others, the police are not expected to lay charge sheet against A-1 and his friends. In so far as some incident prior to 29.10.2008 is concerned, there is no date or time given by the prosecution for that incident. The 1st respondent did not give any report to the police about that incident. The present report is given to the 1st respondent with regard to the incident of receiving pseudonymous phone call on 29.07.2008 only. In that view of the matter, prosecution of A-1 to A-3 in this case is nothing short of abuse of process of law. 2) In the result, the petition is allowed quashing proceedings in C.C. No.140 of 2009 on the file of II Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Lal Bahadur Nagar, which is stated to have been since transferred to XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Lal Bahadur Nagar. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J August 20, 2010 KSH