THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.1200 of 2007 Dated: 2nd February, 2010 Between: Shaik Jilani @ Syed Jilani …Petitioner AND The State rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad And another …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.1200 of 2007 ORDER: This petition is filed by the 1st accused under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing proceedings in C.C. No.32/2007 on the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Gurajala relating to offences punishable under Sections 324, 384 and 506 I.P.C. 2) The 2nd respondent/complainant filed private complaint in the lower Court against three persons shown as A-1 to A-3 alleging offences under Sections 342, 368, 325, 504, 506/34 I.P.C. After enquiry, the lower Court took the case on file against A-1 only for offences under Sections 324, 384 and 506 I.P.C and issued summons to A-1 alone. 3) It is alleged that A-3 (Zachraiah) intended to occupy poramboke land lying in between irrigation channel supplying water to the 2nd respondent and others and another channel which is at a distance of 20 feet from that channel and that A-3 hatched a plan with A-1 and A-2 to encroach the same and that in pursuance of the same A-3 tried to close channel leading to land of the 2nd respondent by filling it up with mud and that the 2nd respondent gave several petitions to higher police authorities and revenue officers in that regard. It is alleged that A-1 called the 2nd respondent to the police station at the instance of A-3 and threatened him with filing of criminal cases under the Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prohibition of Attrocities) Act in case the 2nd respondent continued to file further petitions to higher police and revenue authorities and that on 25.08.2006 A-1 and A-3 along with other constables came to the 2nd respondent’s house and pressed the 2nd respondent to agree for their terms and that A-1 beat the 2nd respondent with lotty due to which there was fracture to ring finger of left hand. A-1 is the then Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, Rentachintala Police Station. 4) It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that the Magistrate without applying mind took the case on file in a mechanical manner and that the private complaint filed by the 2nd respondent is nothing but abuse of process of law and is manifestly absurd and that the prosecution is one of civil nature. Beating a person with a weapon like lotty causing fracture to his finger and forcing him to agree for terms put forward by another person, cannot be termed as transactions which are civil in nature. Not only in the complaint but also in his sworn statement, the 2nd respondent attributes several overt acts to A-1. In case the Magistrate acted mechanically without application of mind, the case would have been taken on file against all the accused for all the offences alleged by the 2nd respondent in the complaint. The fact that the Magistrate took the case on file as against A-1 alone and for only three offences, shows that the Magistrate has amply applied his mind and he did not take the case on file in a mechanical manner. Whether the allegations are true or not, has to be decided by the trial Court after trial in which oral and documentary evidence will be let in by both the sides. 5) The fact that another complaint filed by A-3 in C.F.R. No.950/2007 was forwarded by the Magistrate to the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Gurajala has no bearing herein. There are absolutely no grounds in law for granting relief in this petition. 6) In the result, the petition is dismissed. ___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J February 02, 2010 KSH HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.1200 of 2007 February 02, 2010 KSH