THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.422 of 2008 Dated:08.07.2010 Between: Motupalli Narasimha Raju, And another. ...Petitioners And The State of A.P.(T.P.Gudem Rural Police Station), Through its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad, And another. ...Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.422 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioners are accused Nos.2 and 3 in crime No.161 of 2005 of Rural P.S.Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District. The case was registered under Sections 324, 332, 353 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and under Sections 3(1)((x) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Criminal Petition is filed for quashing the First Information Report (FIR). Be it noted, by the time this case was filed, the Police investigated the crime and filed charge sheet on 17.11.2005. The same was returned by the Court of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tadepalligudem. This Court while directing the Public Prosecutor to get instructions adjourned the matter. Today, when the matter is listed, the Public Prosecutor submits that the charge sheet was represented on 30.11.2005 and the case has been numbered. The Counsel for the petitioners submits that if the criminal trial is allowed to be proceeded with, the same would amount to abuse of process of law. There was a delay of five days in reporting the crime, which itself leads to suspicion, and therefore, complacency of the petitioners cannot be inferred. He also submits that the allegations in the report of the second respondent to the Police do not disclose any offence as alleged, and therefore, if criminal case is allowed to go to trial it would result in miscarriage of justice. This Court has perused the report of the second respondent given to the Police on 05.11.2005 as well as the charge sheet dated 17.11.2005. After doing so, prima facie, this Court is convinced that the offences as alleged are made out and the submissions of the petitioners’ Counsel can be appreciated only after the trial is conducted. This Court also observes that in every case where there is a delay in launching the FIR, it cannot be presumed that the criminal case is foisted against the petitioners who are statedly not involved or involved in the offence. The FIR was filed in 2005, and therefore, it would be in the interests of justice to direct the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class to complete the trial within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Criminal Petition, with the above observations, is accordingly dismissed. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 08.07.2010 Note: Issue C.C in one week. B/o. vs