THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA Criminal Petition No.147 of 2010 2nd March, 2010 Between :- Oruganti Peddi Raju .. Petitioners And another And The State, through SHO, Gollapally, Karimnagar Dist Rep. by Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and another .. Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA Criminal Petition No.147 of 2010 ORDER:- This Court ordered notice on 6-1-2010. 2. Sri Bhaskar Reddy entered appearance on behalf order R.2 – defacto-complainant. 3. Heard Sri Venu Madhav, the learned Counsel representing petitioners – A.2 and A.3 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing R.1 and Sri Bhaskar Reddy representing R.2 – defacto- complainant. 4. The Counsel on record made submissions in elaboration. 5. The principal contention of Sri VenuMadha is that except the word or expression prodhbalam, no other allegation as such had been made against the petitioners-A.2 and A.3. This is not sufficient to attract the ingredients of Section 307 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code and hence the proceedings are to be quashed. 6. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would maintain that apart from Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioners – A.2 and A.3 are charged with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code as well and this being a factual controversy, this cannot be gone into at this stage. 7. Sri Bhaskar Reddy, the learned Counsel representing R.2 – defacto-complainant would maintain that at the instance of and because of the instigation of A.2 and A.3 only, the unfortunate incident happened. Even otherwise, it is not as though the expression simplicitor as such had been specified in the F.I.R., there is other material available on record and the further investigation also would clearly reveal that at the instigation of A.2 and A.3 only, these offences had been committed and hence this is not a fit matter to be interfered under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter, in short, referred to as 'the Code' for the purpose of convenience). 8. Heard the Counsel. 9. It is the case of the petitioners that the police, Gollapally, Karimnagar District, registered F.I.R. in crime No.129/2009 for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 109 of the I.P.C. in which the petitioners names were shown as accused No.2 and 3. Further it is the case of the petitioners that the allegations in the said F.I.R. are that a house site patta was allotted by the Government in favour of the defacto complainant on 27-2-2007 in the month of October, 2008 and that he with an intention to construct a house, removed the unwanted plants, then the adjacent owner of the said site by name Bondla Chandraiah and his family members erected a tin shed on the said site, then he filed a complaint against them, upon which a criminal case was registered. He also alleged that the Sarpanch of the village i.e., the petitioner No.1 and his brother i.e., petitioner No.2 had given a complaint to the higher officials saying that the defacto complainant is already having a residential house by which caused mental agony to him. Then he approached the Human Rights Commission and the District Collector. The Human Rights Commission directed the Police, Gollapally, to provide protection to him in construction of the residential house and that on 29-12-2009 he poured the gravel on the said site with an intention to construct residential house, even he didn’t go there, but the said Bondla Chandraiah keeping the grudge in his mind that the said site is not got by him, with the support of the Sarpanch and his brother, attacked upon him and caused bleeding injuries. It is also the further case of the petitioners that even if the entire allegations in the said F.I.R. are looked into, they do not constitute the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code as against the petitioners, as such the intention and continuation of the criminal proceedings are nothing but abuse of the process of the Court. It is also the further case of the petitioners that as per the defacto complainant, the petitioner No.1 is the Sarpanch of the village Gollapally and the petitioner No.2 is his brother, they are no way concerned with the said plot nor they intended to occupy the said land, in such a case the making of the allegation that the said Bondla Chandraiah with the support of the petitioners attacked is no meaning and the said allegation does not constitute the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code and as such the F.I.R. as against the petitioners is liable to be quashed. 10. This Court had carefully gone through the allegations made in the First Information Report. This Court also perused the other material placed before this Court. This Court is not inclined to express any opinion touching the merits and demerits but however suffice to state that this is not a fit matter to be interfered with under Section 482 of the Code. 11. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ______________________ Justice P.S.Narayana 2nd March, 2010 smr