THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CRL.P. NO.2343 OF 2008 Date:17.06.2010 Between: Repati Appala Naidu and another …Petitioners And/- The State of A.P. rep. By Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. …Respondent THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CRL.P. NO.2343 OF 2008 ORDER: This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the petitioners to quash the First Information Report in Crime No. 486 of 2007 on the file of the IV Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam. I have heard Sri Balaji Medamalli, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State. The de facto complainant/informant in Crime No.486 of 2007 by name Lankalapalli Maheswara Rao, is a police constable No.991 of IV Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam. He was entrusted with non bailable warrant in C.C.No.386 of 2006 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam which was issued against the first petitioner for his non appearance on a notified date. In this context, it requires to be noticed that a petition under Section 317 Cr.P.C. was filed on behalf of the first petitioner before the learned Magistrate to dispense with his presence on 04.07.2007 on the ground that the first petitioner’s mother died and it was not possible for the first petitioner to attend the Court. The learned Magistrate, however, dismissed the said petition and issued non bailable warrant against the first petitioner on 04.07.2007. Thereafter, the first petitioner, who is an advocate by profession moved an application under section 70(2) Cr.P.C. in Crl.M.P.No.13874 of 2007 to recall the non bailable warrant and the learned Magistrate considering the said petition cancelled the non bailable warrant on 05.07.2007. According to the de facto complainant/Lankalapalli Maheswara Rao police constable in IV Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam, he after being entrusted with the non bailable warrant in Crime No.486 of 2007, approached the petitioners on 20.07.2007 and when he tried to execute the non bailable warrant against the first petitioner, the petitioners assaulted him and obstructed him from executing the non bailable warrant. Thereafter, on a report lodged by the de facto complainant, a case in Crime No.486 of 2007 of IV Town Police Station came to be registered under Sections 353 and 34 IPC. The crucial question to be determined in this case is as to whether there is any ring of truth in the allegations mentioned in the report lodged by the Lankalapalli Maheswara Rao, police constable No.991 of IV Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam having regard to the fact situation emerging from the sequence of events? There is no dispute about the fact that the non bailable warrant issued against the first petitioner on 04.07.2007 was subsequently cancelled on the next day i.e. on 05.07.2007 on the application made by the first petitioner to the Magistrate. The first petitioner is an advocate by profession. Even if the de facto complainant informed the petitioners about the proposed execution of non bailable warrant against the first petitioner, the petitioners must have stated about the order passed by the learned Magistrate canceling the non bailable warrant. In such an event, the de facto complainant is under a duty to verify as to whether actually the non bailable warrant was recalled or not, and he is not supposed to persistently make an attempt to execute the non bailable warrant resorting to physical arrest without verifying the facts disclosed by the petitioners about the cancellation of non bailable warrant. The allegations mentioned in the report lodged by the de facto complainant/informant ex facie appears to be devoid of any truth, in view of the fact that the first petitioner being an advocate would not resort to assault or obstruct the de facto complainant since he can as well approach, since the warrant was recalled by the Magistrate and the first petitioner can represent the same to the Magistrate. In any event, since the warrant was not in force being cancelled, even if the petitioners offered reasonable resistance, they are not liable for any criminal offence as alleged in the report lodged by the de facto complainant. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the considered view that if any investigation is allowed to be proceeded on the basis of the report lodged by the de facto complainant in Crime No.486 of 2007 of IV Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam, it amounts to abuse of process of law. Consequently the first information report in Crime No.486 of 2007 of IV Town Police Station is quashed. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed. ________________ Date: 17.06.2010 R. KANTHA RAO, J Kvrm THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CRL.P. NO.2343 OF 2008 Date:17.06.2010