THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.2994 of 2009 Date:26.08.2010 Between: V.Himavanta Rao. ……..Petitioner/accused. And The State of A.P. rep by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP., Hyderabad and another. ……Respondents. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.2994 of 2009 ORDER: This criminal petition has been taken out under Section 482 Cr.P.C by V.Himavantha Rao in C.C.No.75 of 2009 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet to quash the proceedings therein. The petitioner is the sole accused in C.C.No.75 of 2009. He has been charge sheeted for the offence under Section 309 IPC. The prosecution case in brief is:- The petitioner as Sarpanch of Ganapavaram Village started hunger strike to stop unauthorized constructions of M/s.Idupulapadu Cotton Mills, Ganapavaram and also implementation of the Gram Panchyat resolution for demolition of unauthorized constructions. He commenced the hunger strike on 7.1.2009. On receipt of information of the hunger strike, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Chilakaluripet, on 12.1.2009, at about 2.00 P.M., rushed to the spot along with his staff and requested the petitioner/accused to withdraw from the indefinite hunger strike, but the petitioner/accused refused to withdraw the indefinite hunger strike. Since the petitioner/accused refused to withdraw from the indefinite Hunger, a requisition was sent to the Medical Officer, Community Health Center, Chilakaluripet, who arrived the spot and examined the petitioner/accused. At about 3.45 P.M., the petitioner/accused was admitted in Medical Ward, Community Health Center, Chilakaluripet. Since the petitioner was not cooperating and refusing to take treatment, he was referred to Government General Hospital, Guntur for further investigation like E.C.G., etc.. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Nadendla Police Station, registered a case against the petitioner/accused for the offence under Section 309 IPC. After completing the investigation, a charge sheet came to be presented before the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet. The learned Junior Civil Judge took the charge sheet on file as C.C.No.75 of 2009. Hence this Criminal Petition by the petitioner/accused with a prayer stated supra. Heard Sri T.Bali Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused submits that the intention of the petitioner is only to draw the attention of the authorities so as to make them to prevent the unauthorized constructions being made by the Idupalapadu Cotton Mills, Ganapavaram and to demolish the unauthorized constructions in the mill premises and in the given facts and circumstances, ingredients of Section 309 IPC have not been made out in which case continuing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner/accused for the offence under Section 309 IPC amounts to an abuse of process of the Court. In support of his contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Chintoji Balaiah v. The State of A.P rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderbad[1] and Lalitha and others v. State of A.P.[2] and judgment in Padala Venkata Rama Reddy v. State of A.P represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.[3] In the first cited case, the learned single judge of this Court observed that what constitutes an attempt to commit an offence is a mixed question of law and fact, depending largely on the circumstances of the particular case. Attempt defies a precise and exact definition. Broadly speaking, all crimes which consist of the commission of affirmative acts are preceded by some covert or overt conduct which may be divided into three stages. The first stage exists when the culprit entertains the idea or intention to commit an offence. In the second stage, he makes preparations to commit it. The third stage is reached when the culprit takes deliberate overt steps to commit the offence. Such an overt act or step, in order to be criminal, need not be the penultimate act towards the commission of the offence. It is sufficient if such act or acts were deliberately done, and manifest a clear intention to commit the offence aimed, being reasonably proximate to the consumption of the offence. In order to constitute an attempt, first, there must be an intention to commit a particular offence, second, some act must have been done which would necessarily have to be done towards the commission of the offence, and, third, such act must be proximate to the intended result. In the second cited decision, a learned single judge of this Court has observed that even if there is a such intention at the beginning, one has always to make allowance for the possibility of the accused changing his mind and breaking his fast before it becomes dangerous. If a person openly declares that the will fast to death and then proceeds to refuse on nourishment until the stage is reached when there is imminent danger of death ensuing, it can be said that the intention of the accused was to commit suicide by starvation. But where there is no open declaration by the accused that he will fast to death and that stage has not reached where it has become dangerous, it cannot be inferred that the intention of undertaking fast is to commit suicide. In the third cited decision, the learned Single Judge of this Court after taking into consideration of the facts therein has observed as hereunder:- “It is not known whether the health of the petitioner was deteriorated since the date of hunger strike and he was forced to give up the hunger strike. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor is fair in his submission that there is no allegation that the petitioner started indefinite hunger strike with an intention to commit suicide.” Keeping in view of the proposition of law laid down in the above referred decisions, let me examine the facts of the case. There is no material on record as to what was the health condition of the petitioner/accused when he was shifted to the hospital from the hunger strike camp. It is not known whether the health of the petitioner was deteriorated since the date of hunger strike. In the last cited case, taking into account of non- availability of any material as to deterioration of the health of the petitioner/accused therein since the date of hunger strike, this court proceeded to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner therein for the offence under Section 309 IPC. The proposition of law laid down in the last cited decision squarely applies to the facts of the case on hand. In view of the same, continuing the proceedings initiated against the petitioners for the offence under Section 309 IPC amounts to abuse of process of law and the same are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the proceedings initiated against the petitioner/accused in C.C.No.75 of 2009 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet, Gutnur District. _________________________________ JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY Date:26.8.2010 mrb [1] 2007 (2) ALT (Crl.) 92 (A.P) [2] 1998 (1) ALD (Crl.) 741 (A.) [3] Crl.P.No.3082 of 2006, dated 24.10.2006.