THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5786 OF 2007 ORDER: 1 Aggrieved by registration of Cr.No.133 of 2007 for the offences punishable under section 3(i) (X) of S.T. & S.T. (POA) Act, by Station House Officer, Pedapadu Police Station, West Godavari District against them, the accused therein preferred this Criminal Petition seeking to quash the said proceedings. 2 Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this petition are that on 18.08.2007 at 4.00 p.m. when the complainant i.e. the first respondent, at whose instance the present crime has been registered, was cutting grass on the bund of the land belonging to his master, the petitioners 1 to 3 went there shouted at him stating that he and his master - Paladugu Mohan Das are putting obstruction for the passage of the drain water from their land and they also abused him in the name of his caste and they further beat him. In the meantime G.Venkateswara Rao and Paladugu Janaki Ramayya came there and pacified the matter. Thereafter the complainant went into the village and after consulting with the villagers he gave report to the police pursuant to which the police registered the present crime. 3 A learned Judge of this court on 06.10.2007 while admitting the Criminal Petition ordered interim stay and subsequently on 15.03.2010 another learned Judge modified the said interim order and restricted the same to stay of arrest only, but allowed the other proceedings to go on. 4 An affidavit sworn to by Smt. N.K.Annapurna Devi, the second petitioner herein, is filed stating that the petitioners are no way concerned with the alleged incident and that there are civil disputes between the petitioners and the brother of the second petitioner by name Bheemeswara Rao and that the present crime has been registered at the instance of said Bheemeswara Rao only. She further stated that her mother lodged a report against her brother Bheemeswara Rao Vide Cr.No.204 of 2007 under sections 323, 506 and 384 of IPC on the file of P.S. Abids, Hyderabad. She further stated in the affidavit that on the date of incident they had not visited Gogunta village where the alleged place of incident is situate. The relevant portion of the affidavit is extracted hereunder: “I submit that on 17-8-2007 I along with my daughter went along with Sri M. Ravi Kumar, S.I. of Police, Abids Police Station for the purpose of identifying my brother Sri Bheemeswara Rao and his wife who were named as accused in Cr.No.204 of 2007 registered on a report given by my mother. We went to Gudivada in a car but as they could not be traced we came back and reached Hyderabad at about 8.30 a.m. on 18-8-2007. On 18-8-2007 at about 3.30 p.m. myself, my mother and my daughter went to the office of the Commissioner of police and meet Sri Balwinder Singh, Commissioner in his office at Baseerbagh and requested him to direct the police of Abids Police Station to take stern action against my brother Sri Bheemeswararao as he resorted to sending anti social elements to my house for pressurising my mother to withdraw the case filed against him. When I visited that office I signed in the visitors register also.” 5 The first respondent put in his appearance through an advocate Sri C.Upendra, but has not chosen to file any counter affidavit. 6 Sri C.Padmanabha Reddy, learned senior counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the present case is foisted against the petitioners herein at the instance of the brother of the second petitioner by name Bheemeswara Rao in order to wreak vengeance on the petitioners and with a view to spite them due to private and personal grudge and in order to get them into his dictates in view of the registration of the Cr.No.204 of 2007 by the mother of the second petitioner against him. He further submitted that as there were some property disputes between the brother (Bheemeswara Rao) of the second petitioner and their mother Tulasi Bai, their mother is taking shelter in the house of the second petitioner and in that connection her brother - Bheemeswara Rao used to threaten the second petitioner and her family members in order to settle the property disputes and as their mother gave a report against him, the said Bheemeswara Rao got foisted this case against the petitioners. He further contended that the petitioners had no occasion or opportunity to be at the alleged place of incident at the relevant point of time since from one day prior to the alleged date of incident they were in the company of the Sub Inspector of Police Abids, Hyderabad for the purpose of identification of the said Bheemeswara Rao in Gudivada in connection with Cr.No.204 of 2004, which was registered at the instance of their mother and that they were in the office of the Commissioner of Police, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad at the relevant point of time. In this context he had drawn my attention to the certificate issued by the Sub Inspector of Police, P.S. Abids, Hyderabad dated 29.09.2007 certifying the factum of the presence of the petitioners in his company on 17th and 18th August 2007 and he ultimately prayed this court to quash the said proceedings. 7 Heard the counsel for the first respondent and also the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 8 Since this court passed an order of interim stay in Crl.M.P.No.4288 of 2007 on 06.10.2007, there is no occasion for the police to take up investigation in this case. However, the said order of interim stay had been restricted to stay of arrest only, but the other proceedings were allowed to proceed. If any amount of investigation had been done, it would be helpful for the court to come to the conclusion on the genuineness or otherwise of the report given by the first respondent herein. But the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has not reported that he received any instructions that the police have taken up any investigation in this case. In that view of the matter, this court has no other option except to proceed with the case on the material available in the record. 9 In the case on hand the petitioners took a strong alibi that they had no occasion to visit the place of the alleged incident on the fateful day since they were in the company of the Sub Inspector of Police, Abids, Hyderabad on 17.08.2007 and in the office of the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad at 3.30 p.m. on 18.08.2007 in connection with identification of the brother of the second petitioner by name Bheemeswara Rao who was arrayed as accused in Cr.No.204 of 2007, which was registered on the report given by the mother of the second petitioner. In support of the said contention they produced a certificate issued by the Sub Inspector of Police, Abids, which, for the purpose of reference, is extracted hereunder: “GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (POLICE DEPARTMENT) Office of the Inspector of Police, Abid Road P.S. Hyd Dated : 29-09-2007 Cr.No.204/2007 C E R T I F I C A T E This is to certify that, I, M. Ravi Kumar, S.I. of Police, Abids P.S, concerned I/O of Cr.No.204/2007 Under Section 323 IPC, 506 IPC and 384 IPC, on the date 17-08-2007, on the instruction of our CI, I along with my staff and also complainant’s daughter Mrs. N.K. Annapurna Devi and her daughter Sarvani, who came for identification of the accused persons and together proceeded to Gudivada, Krishna District, in the part of investigation, as both the accused are absconding. We made enquiries about the accused persons in the above said crime in all probable places, but could not find. We also met the concerned S.I of Gudivada on the same day after dinner at about 10 PM. My team along with Mrs. N.K. Annapurna Devi and Sarvai retuned and reached Hyderabad about 8.30 a.m on 18-08- 2007. These are that facts to the best of knowledge and information. This information was also recorded in Part – I of C.D. File. (Underlining mine) Sd/-x x x x x x x x x Sub Inspector of Police P.S.Abids Road, Hyderabad A.P.” 10 In the light of the above certificate issued by a person who is in the rank of Sub Inspector of Police, by affixing the seal of the Police station, this court is of the considered opinion that the same shall be taken into consideration. Further there is a mention in the second para of the said certificate to the effect that the information contained in the said certificate was also made part of the record in Part-I of C.D file of Cr.No.204 of 2007. Hence, the said certificate in the opinion of this court shall be presumed as proof as per section 11 of the Indian Evidence Act in so far as the presence of the petitioners in the company of the said Sub Inspector is concerned. 11 Further, the stand taken by the petitioners that the present crime has been foisted at the instance of the brother of the second petitioner gains ground by the specific allegations made by the mother of the second petitioner against her brother Bheemeswara Rao. Hence, this court, in view of the ratio laid down by the apex Court in STATE OF HARYANA V. BHAJANLAL[1] is of the view that the allegations made in the FIR are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the petitioners since the presence of the petitioners at the alleged scene of offence at the relevant point of time cannot be expected. Further, this court is also of the view that the present criminal proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the petitioners and with a view to spite them due to private and personal grudge by the said Bheemeswar Rao. 12 From all the above, this court is of the view that continuance of the proceeding in Cr.No. .133 of 2007 on the file of Station House Officer, Pedapadu Police Station, West Godavari District against the petitioners is nothing but an abuse of process of law and accordingly they are liable to be quashed 13 In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in Cr.No. .133 of 2007 on the file of Station House Officer, Pedapadu Police Station, West Godavari District against the petitioners are hereby quashed. -------------- 13.08.2010 Kvsn [1] 1992 SUPP (1) SUPREME COURT CASES 338