THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.2302 OF 2009 ORDER: The Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code to quash the proceedings in P.R.C.No.1 of 2009 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Bapatla, Guntur District. 2. A complaint was given by one P.Srirama Chandra Murthy against the accused persons for attack on him, which was registered as Crime No.8 of 2008 by the police Bapatla Town. The date of offence was said to be on 24.01.2008. The police after due investigation have filed a Criminal Case under Sections 324, 326, 342 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’), which was taken on file as C.C.No.131 of 2008 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Bapatla. The complainant being not satisfied with the above performance of the police and for not charging the accused for the offence under Section 307 IPC, filed a private complaint as P.R.C. and after recording the sworn statement of the complainant, the P.R.C. was numbered as P.R.C.No.1 of 2009 and summons were issued to the persons, who are the petitioners herein seeking for quashing of the proceedings. 3. Evidently, the police have recorded the statements of all the witnesses including the doctor and considered the medical evidence. The police after fair investigation have filed charge sheet under Sections 326, 324, 342 read with 34 IPC. The case is triable as a warrant case. The only statement considered by the learned Magistrate before taking the complaint on file is the sworn statement of the complainant. The order of the learned Magistrate taking the case on file does not show that the investigation done by the police is not proper and that the statements of the complainant attracts the offence under Section 307 IPC, for which the addition was made. Evidently, the police have filed a charge sheet for other offences under Sections 326, 324, 342 read with 34 IPC, the lower Court taking the same as cognisance in P.R.C.No.1 of 2009 along with 307 IPC is not proper when there is no finding or at least reference by the lower Court to holding that there was a prima facie material attracting an offence under Section 307 IPC and the police have intentionally omitted to charge the accused for such an offence in this case. Evidently, the injury certificate shows that there are contusions only and a fracture to the metacarpal bone and none of them are capable of causing death in order to attract an offence under Section 307 IPC. Mere statements that they threatened to kill or intended to kill will not by themselves attract the offence under Section 307 IPC, by the medical evidence and the other statements of the witnesses does not disclose an offence under Section 307 IPC. 4. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, the cognisance taken by the learned Magistrate is without applying the principles of law or considering the evidence and evidently the private P.R.C. is filed to harass the accused by abuse of process of law since it is to be tried as a Sessions Case and the consequences will be unequal when already a criminal case is filed on the same facts and it was taken cognisance by the Magistrate. 5. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, taking of cognisance in P.R.C.No.1 of 2009 is not supported by any material evidence to attract the offence under Section 307 IPC and the order of the learned Magistrate also suffers from infirmity as to what are the reasons for taking the file under Section 307 IPC when the police have filed the charge sheet and which was taken on file by the same Court for other offences. Therefore, the proceedings in P.R.C.No.1 of 2009 are hereby quashed. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J Date:15.07.2011 INL