IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRL.P.NO.1924 OF 2007. Date:05.02.2010 Between:- Dr.B.Satyanarayana and another ..Petitioners And State of A.P., through Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad and another. .. Respondents ORDER:- This petition is filed by the accused Nos.1 and 2 (A1 and A2) under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing proceedings in C.C.No.364 of 2006 on the file of IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Ibrahimpatnam, Rangareddy district relating to offences punishable under Sections 342, 504 and 506 I.P.C. 2. In the first instance, the Ibrahimpatnam Police registered report of the 2nd petitioner/A2 as case in Crime No.148 of 2004 and issued F.I.R. for offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 I.P.C. While so, on 14.09.2004, the 2nd respondent filed private complaint in the lower court against A1 and A2 alleging the above said offences. On reading of contents of F.I.R. in Cr.No.148 of 2004 and private complaint in C.C.No.364 of 2006, it is evident that both of them are case and counter. Undoubtedly, there was an incident at Ankit hospital on 17.08.2004. A1 is running Ankit hospital and A2 is working as a Doctor in that hospital. According to the 2nd respondent, one patient by name K.Yadaiah was brought to Anikit Nursing Home on 16.08.2004 as he consumed pesticide poison. It is alleged that doctors in that nursing home advised the persons who brought the said patient to take the patient to Hyderabad for better treatment and that the nursing home gave bill for Rs.10,000/- without making any treatment and that when the 2nd respondent along with others went to A1’s wife-Dr.Anuradha and requested her to reduce the bill as the patient was poor and was not in a position to pay bill amount, Dr.Anuradha refused to reduce the bill and also refused to discharge the patient until bill amount is paid. While so, it is further alleged that on 17.08.2004 at 10 a.m., when the 2nd respondent reached A1’s hospital, both the accused persons along with their staff members caught hold of the complainant and that A1 caught hold of collar of the complainant and abused him in filthy language in telugu and that both the accused and their staff members illegally confined the 2nd respondent in a room in the hospital and that he was beaten with lathis and knives and there was an attempt to kill him and that A1 kicked the 2nd respondent on chest and A2 beat the 2nd respondent on abdomen and that both the accused and their staff beat the 2nd respondent all over his body, due to which he received injuries all over his body. It is stated that discharge slip of the 2nd respondent from Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad shows that there were no injuries or abrasions on body of the 2nd respondent. Perhaps for that reason, the case was not taken on file by the lower court for offences under sections 323 or 324 or even 352 I.P.C. It is stated by the 2nd respondent in the complaint that the police came to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad on 18.08.2004 and effected his arrest and produced him before the Magistrate. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel placing reliance on STATE OF ORISSA V. GANESH CHANDRA JEW[1] that the 2nd respondent/complainant did not allege beating him by the accused when he was produced before the Magistrate by the police after his arrest. Question of revealing a counter case to the Magistrate at the time of his production by the police before the Magistrate does not arise at all. When a person is produced on arrest by the police, then that person is expected to reveal to the Magistrate whether any police officer or police personnel manhandled him and beat him and whether there were any injuries on him or suffered by him in the hands of the police. Non-disclosure of the present offence by the 2nd respondent to the Magistrate at the time of his production before the Magistrate in the counter case will not in any way better the petitioners’ case herein. In Crime No.148 of 2004 lodged by the 2nd petitioner on 17.08.2004 with Ibrahimpatnam police, it was stated by A2 that on 17.08.2004, at about 8.50 a.m., the 2nd respondent came to the hospital along with other people and threatened him and threw him out of chair and manhandled him. In that report, A2 did not state reason or motive for the 2nd respondent for that offence. Now, the 2nd respondent in the private complaint filed by him in C.C.No.364 of 2006, made clean disclosure of all the events which led to both the offences. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that this is a case which falls within item No.7 of the guidelines given in STATE OF HARYANA v. BHAJAN LAL[2] as the present case filed by the 2nd respondent is nothing but abuse of process of law as it was filed as a counter blast for Crime No.148 of 2004. In my opinion, simply because there is case and counter, one case cannot be thrown out of the record on the ground of abuse of process of Court. It is not known whether the case filed the 2nd respondent is abuse of process of Court or whether the report given by A2 is abuse of process of law. It is a matter which has to be decided by the trial court after full trial during which evidence of both the parties will be recorded. Therefore, I do not find any valid or legal reasons to quash proceedings in the case filed by the 2nd respondent. 3. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. _​_________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J 5th February 2010 AMD [1] 2004(1) ALD (Crl.)729 (SC) [2] 1992 Crl.Law Journal 462 = 1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335.