THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1445 OF 2008 DT.23.07.2010 Between: N.Jayaprakash ………….Petitioner Vs. The State of A.P., Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad, through P.S.Alier, Nalgonda District and another. ……………Respondents. O R D E R: This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.330 of 2007 on the file of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bhongir, Nalgonda District. The petitioner is accused No.1 in C.C.No.330 of 2007 for the offence under Sections 143, 447 and 506 I.P.C. The respondent/complainant filed a complaint before the Station House Officer, Aler, complaining that the complainant and her husband are the victims in the hands of the Railway Protection Force on the pretext of some non-bailable warrant issued against her husband. Nine R.P.F. personnel (7 in mufti and 2 in uniform with rifles) headed by the petitioner N.Jayaprakash, who was impersonated as S.I., Aler, came to the house of the respondent/complainant by holding a pistol, in a bid to take revenge against them and knocked their gate at Aler around 1.45 a.m., on the intervening night of 17/18-07-2006, threatened the complainant at gun point to open the gate and insulted her modesty in a filthy language. When the complainant refused to open the gate, they tried to break it and enter into the compound till 2.20 a.m., and then went away. The same was referred to the Aler Police. On receipt of the complaint, the police registered a case in Crime No.76 of 2006 under Sections 143, 447 and 506 I.P.C. and took up investigation. After due investigation, the police filed a report stating that the complainant lodged a false complaint at Aler police station. As per the investigation and version of witnesses it was revealed that the complainant lodged a false complaint at Aler police station, in order to save her husband from the above case and as such she accorded closure of orders from SDPO, Bhongir, vide C.No.310/SDPO-B/06, dated 16.10.2006. On filing such a protest petition, the learned Magistrate took the case on file and issued summons. Questioning the same, the present petition is filed. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is a public servant and in discharge of his official duties, he went to the house of the complainant to serve NBWs., against the husband of the complainant and unless sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is given, no court can take cognizance of an offence against such an official, except on a prior sanction by the competent authority. The learned counsel also contended that unless the complainant is examined as contemplated under Section 200 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate cannot take cognizance of an offence on the complaint. the proceedings are liable to be quashed. I do not see any merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner for the simple reason that knocking the door by the personnel at 1.45 a.m., and threatening the complainant is not in discharge of official duty as contended by the petitioner and admittedly, service of NBWs. cannot be taken out in the mid night/early hours. Further, when the complaint was forwarded under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C., to the concerned police, the Investigating Agency filed a report stating that the case as false. The complainant can always file a protest petition in any form and since the protest petition is filed in the form of an affidavit, it can always be taken into consideration. On filing the protest petition, since the complainant and other witnesses were already examined under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate can differ with the opinion expressed by the Investigating Agency and take into consideration of the statements recorded by the Investigating Agency while taking cognizance and issuing process. Therefore, it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings and I do not find any merit in the criminal petition. The criminal petition is dismissed. ________________ A.GOPAL REDDY J., Dt.23.07.2010 tjs