IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.351 of 2009 DATE:05.08.2010 Between: Chinnapothula Venkateswarlu and others …… Petitioners And: Batchu Chennakesava Rao and another …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.351 of 2009 ORDER : The petitioners 1 to 3 who are Sub-Inspectors of Police in Railway Police Stations, Chirala, Ongole and Nellore are arrayed as A-1 to A-3 in C.C. No.198 of 2001 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Chirala. They are accused of offences punishable under Sections 343 and 365 I.P.C. Even as per allegations in the complaint, A-1 to A-3 along with other police personnel came to house of the victim by name Nagaraju and took him away without disclosing reasons for taking him to his kith and kin and he was taken to railway police station, Nellore and subsequently he was produced before A Magistrate. According to the petitioners, the alleged victim Batchu Nagaraju @ Chanti is having criminal back ground and was involved in many property offences. Even as per allegations in the complaint, the petitioners and others took Nagaraju into custody and he was not manhandled, but was produced in Court via police station. In those circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioners were acting outside their official duties. The petitioners have taken Nagaraju during the course of performing their official duties as Sub-Inspectors of railway police. Therefore, without there being prior sanction for prosecution under Section 197 Cr.P.C. the lower Court should not have taken cognizance of the case against the petitioners. 2) Another surprising thing to be noticed in this case is that the 1st respondent/complainant is not the victim, but is stated to be brother of the victim. It is not known under what authority he was filing the private complaint. It is not as if the victim is not available. Even if the alleged victim is in custody, he could have filed the complaint through prison. It is evident that the private complaint is nothing but sheer abuse of process of law and it is devoid of prior sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. 3) In the result, the petition is allowed quashing proceedings in C.C. No.198 of 2001 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Chirala in so far as the petitioners 1 to 3/A-1 to A-3 are concerned. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J August 5, 2010 KSH