THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.7906 and 8016 of 2008 COMMON ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Standing Counsel for Andhra Pradesh High Court appearing for the second respondent and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent. As these two Criminal Petitions are filed seeking to quash the proceedings initiated in Crime No.107 of 2008 on the file of U.Kothapalli Police Station, East Godavari District, they are heard together and being disposed of by this common order. On 03.11.2008, the second respondent, who is the process server of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram in East Godavari District, lodged a complaint before the Station House Officer of U.Kothapalli Police Station, East Godavari District, stating that when he went to Ramanakkapet Village on 02.11.2008 to serve summons on some persons with regard to the case of Special Economic Zone, one unknown person took him to a distant place stating that other addressees are available at that place, he was beaten by the husband of former Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat along with others, he was wrongfully confined and his thumb impression was obtained on a paper acknowledging the receipt of bribe of Rs.100/-. Thereupon, Crime No.107 of 2008 was registered for the alleged offences under Sections 353, 341 and 506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. In these Criminal Petitions, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that though there was no complaint against the petitioners, because they were agitating in Ramanakkapet Village against the declaration of Special Economic Zone, the police have bent upon to harass them by connecting them to the aforesaid crime. It is stated that the petitioners’ names were not mentioned in the complaint. In spite of the same, the police were bent upon to harass the petitioners by arresting them, as such, it is a fit case to quash the proceedings in Crime No.107 of 2008. A perusal of the contents of the complaint lodged by the second respondent indicates that the complaint is registered for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 341, 506 IPC read with 34 IPC. Although it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners’ names did not figure in the complaint and there is no specific averment against them, the same is a matter for investigation by the investigating agency and there is no ground to quash the proceedings in Crime No.107 of 2008 at this stage. In that view of the matter, as it is stated that the crime was registered in 2008 and the investigation therein is stayed in view of the interim orders passed by this Court on 03.12.2008, while I am not inclined to quash the proceedings in the aforesaid crime at this stage, I deem it appropriate to issue directions to the respondents to complete the investigation on the complaint of the second respondent as expeditiously as possible and file a final report. There shall be a further direction to the respondents not to take steps for arrest of the petitioners till investigation is completed and final report is filed. Subject to the above directions, both the Criminal Petitions are disposed of. _______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 12th OCTOBER, 2011. kvni