HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.3490 of 2007 DATED 02.02.2010 Between: T.K.Kodandaram … Petitioner And The Station House Officer, Marredpally P.S And others. … Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.3490 of 2007 ORDER: This petition is filed by the 1st accused under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing proceedings in C.C. No.715/2005 on the file of X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad relating to offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 427, 448, 379, 506/34 I.P.C. 2) The 11th respondent is the defacto-complainant in this case. It is alleged that A-1 along with his henchmen formed into unlawful assembly and forcibly trespassed into house of the 11th respondent, caused damage to his property, forcibly snatched away his car, threatened him with dire consequences in case he did not vacate the premisis. The said offence is stated to have taken place on 17.06.2003 at about 08.00 P.M. It is further alleged that on 15.08.2003 the stolen car was found lying in the premisis of Lakshminivas apartments, Chandrapuri Colony, L.B.Nagar and it was seized under cover of mediator’s report and that A-1 was arrested on 30.05.2004 and was interrogated by the police and that A-1 confessed the offence in the presence of mediators. 3) There is no dispute that there are certain property disputes between A-1 and the defacto-complainant and that there is history of previous civil and criminal litigation between them. From the previous history alone, one cannot jump to the conclusion that the case was foisted with oblique motive. Motive is a double edged weapon. Motive may play a role either in giving false report against the accused or in the accused committing the offence against the defacto-complainant. Irrespective of motive it has to be seen in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C whether taking allegations of the prosecution for granted as disclosed in the charge sheet, any case is prima facie made out for offences alleged against A-1. Truth or otherwise of the prosecution case has to be decided by the trial Court after recording evidence to be let in by both the parties. At this stage, this Court cannot be expected to go into disputed questions of fact relating to the offences proper. 4) It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that in F.I.R Sections 448 and 379 I.P.C were interpolated subsequently. No doubt, those sections of law were inserted with pen even though entire F.I.R is prepared by computer printout. But, no part of allegations in F.I.R was interpolated. Perhaps, thinking that those sections of law also are attracted having regard to allegations in report given by the 11th respondent, they were subsequently written in ink. Similar writings in ink are found not only in F.I.R but also in charge sheet. They do not throw any doubt on the police record at this stage. 5) It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that only four persons are shown as accused in the charge sheet and that therefore the lower Court should not have taken the case on file for offences under Sections 147 and 148 I.P.C, because in order to become unlawful assembly, there must be assembly of five or more persons. As per allegations in F.I.R, there were about 20 to 30 persons who accompanied A-1 and A-2. Simply because other culprits were not identified during investigation and only four persons could be identified, it cannot be said that offences under Sections 147 and 148 I.P.C were not made out by the prosecution. It is a matter of fact whether any other persons totalling 20 to 30 in number participated in the offence along with A-1 to A-4. 6) No doubt, seizure of the alleged stolen car was on 15.08.2003, long prior to arrest of A-1 on 30.05.2004 and his alleged confession after his arrest. There is no recovery of any stolen property in this case in pursuance of the alleged confession statement of A-1. That is the reason why the prosecution did not add offence punishable under Section 411 I.P.C in this case as against A-1. It is a question of fact whether A-1 and other accused persons who are said to have followed A-1 removed car of the defacto-complainant from his residential premesis on date of the offence without his consent. It is also no doubt true that the alleged confession statement of A-1 during interrogation by the police on 30.05.2004 after his arrest, is wholly irrelevant and inadmissible in evidence, as no portion thereof is saved by Section 27 of the Evidence Act. In spite of it, it is for the lower Court to decide on facts whether the prosecution was able to make out offences alleged against A-1 in this case, after full trial. At this stage, I do not find any valid or legal reasons to quash pending criminal proceedings in the lower Court. 7) In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J February 02, 2010 KSH