THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.6498 of 2009 ORDER: 1 This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings in C.C.No.1742 of 2005 on the file of the Court of X Metropolitan Magistrate, Malkajgiri, Hyderabad, registered for offences punishable under Sections 448, 427 and 188 of IPC in so far as the petitioner who is the second accused in the criminal case is concerned. 2 The first respondent is the de facto complainant in the case. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed before the trial court. 3 As per the prosecution A.1 in the case involved in trespassing into the property of the de facto complainant and destroying the existing wall therein by engaging four mastries and ten coolies and the de facto complainant, on information, went there and saw the incident and in spite of protest they did not stall the work, which attracts the said provisions of law. 4 It is the contention of learned counsel for the second accused that the de facto complainant has been cited as L.W.1 to speak about the incident and two more witnesses have been cited as pancha witnesses who got no personal knowledge about the alleged incident and the concerned investigating officer is cited as another witness to speak about the investigation of the case and therefore only the corresponding statement of the de facto complainant has to be taken into consideration and there is absolutely no basis about the involvement of A.2 in the said crime and if the claim of the prosecution is true, necessary identification parade should have been conducted for the identification of A.2 as one of the culprits in the case but it was not done and hence the proceedings are liable to be quashed. 5 The point for consideration is whether there are sufficient grounds to quash the proceedings against A.2 in the case? 6 In the First Information Report the name of A.2 is not mentioned as one of the culprits in the case. Further, in the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the de facto complainant, a copy of which is filed before this Court also, there is no reference of his name as one of the culprits in the case. Further, admittedly, no test identification parade was conducted for the identification of A.2 in this context. Therefore, virtually, there is no material to prosecute A.2 in the case. Without any basis, he should not be prosecuted and if it is done, it amounts to abuse of process of law. 7 Ultimately the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.1742 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the X Metropolitan Magistrate, Malkajgiri, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed, insofar as A.2 in the case is concerned. ---------------------------------------------- G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J. 30.12.2011 Kvsn