THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.5267 of 2006 Dated: 10th FEBRUARY, 2010 Between: D.V.Rama Mohana Rao And another. …Petitioners/Accused AND Mogilisetti Chalapathi Rao And another. … Complainant / Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.5267 of 2006 ORDER: This petition is filed by the accused Nos.1 and 2 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing proceedings in C.C.No.103 of 2006 on the file of II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, relating to offences punishable under Sections 447, 448, 354, 506 I.P.C. A-1 was working as Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Vijayawada. A-2 was working as Assistant General Manager in Krishna District Cooperative Central Bank at Vijayawada. The first respondent is the complainant in the lower Court. Son-in-law of the complainant by name D.V.N.Pandu Ranga Rao was working as Assistant Secretary in Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, Pedalanka, Krishna District. Alleging that Son-in-law of the complainant misappropriated huge sum of money from the society to the extent of Rs.2 Crores, proceedings were initiated under Section 60 of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964, and attachment before judgment was also passed in respect of properties belonging to him. It is stated that while making attachment before judgment of properties of the defaulter, house belonging to the complainant was also attached. Ultimately, Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Gudivada, passed order dated 27.06.2005 determining liability of persons under Section 60(1) of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964. The offence in this case is stated to have occurred 16.04.2003 at 02:45 P.M. at house of the complainant. It is contended by the petitioners that they went there for making enquiry about son-in-law of the complainant. Thus, there is no dispute about A-1 and A-2 going to scene of offence at the time of offence on the date. During that time, the offence is stated to have taken place. Originally, when the complaint was filed by the complainant before the then IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, it was forwarded to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation and report. Thereupon, Suryaraopet (Law and Order) police, Vijayawada, registered the private complaint as case in Crime No.283 of 2003 and issued FIR, investigated into the crime and filed final report referring the case as false, basing on statements of witness Nos.3 and 4. Thereupon, the complainant filed Protest Petition before the lower Court and after making enquiry, the lower Court took the case on file as C.C.No.103 of 2006. It is alleged that order of attachment before judgment passed by the first accused describing the property as house belonging to father-in-law of D.V.N. Pandu Ranga Rao is illegal. Subject matter of the case is not legality or otherwise of order of attachment before judgment in respect of the complainant’s house property. Subject matter of the crime is the incident which took place on 16.04.2003 at about 02:45 P.M. at the complainant’s house. It is alleged in the complaint that A-1 highhandedly demanded the complainant to pay Rs.50,000/- for stopping his illegal action and threatened to see that the complainant and his family members would be on roads and that A-1 dragged the complainant, his wife and daughter by pulling their sarees out of the house and outraged modesty of his wife and daughter and that when the complainant and his family members questioned about highhanded behaviour of the accused, the accused abused them in filthy and un-parliamentary language and behaved in unruly and illegal manner and that the accused created terror in minds of complainant and his family members and that the accused by leaving the place, threatened the complainant and his family members with dire consequences stating that they would see their end in case the incident is reported to anybody. Having regard to specific allegations made by the complainant against petitioners / accused, non recording of final report filed by the police and taking the complaint on file by the lower Court is not illegal or irregular. It is for the petitioners to participate in the trial and put forth their defences if any for the incident, before lower Court. At this stage, I do not find any valid or legal reasons to interfere in this matter. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. ___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J February 10, 2010 Bvv