THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARA CRIMINAL PETITION No.5102 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioners 1 and 2/A1 and A2 are accused of offences punishable under Sections 447 and 506 I.P.C. Private complaint filed by the 1st respondent was referred to the Police by the Magistrate for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The 1st respondent/de facto complainant is Head Constable in Traffic Police Station, Kurnool. It is alleged that on 17.05.2009 at about 8:00 P.M., Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Traffic Police Station, Kurnool, came to the Police Station along with Police Constable with motor cycle bearing No.AP-21-P-0002 which is said to have been seized by them and handed over R.C. and cell phone of A1 to the 1st respondent, as he was station writer. It is alleged that at about 8:15 P.M., A1 and A2 came to the Police Station and entered into chamber of the 1st respondent high handedly without his permission and demanded the 1st respondent to return cell phone and vehicle to A1 and that when the 1st respondent advised A1 and A2 to pay fine amount so that the articles will be returned to him, and that thereupon, A2 grew angry against the 1st respondent and abused him in filthy language and threatened him with filing a complaint in Court against him and also threatened him with dire consequences and prevented him from doing his duties. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that A2 is the advocate for A1 and that because A1 filed another private complaint against Police Officers through A2 as his counsel, present private complaint is filed by the 1st respondent with malafide intention and as counter blast for the complaint filed by A1 through A2 before the Magistrate against Police Officers. 2. Genesis of the matter is alleged riding of motorcycle by A1 while talking on his cell phone. The Police stopped A1 and he was demanded to pay fine for the said traffic violation. As A1 refused to pay fine amount, Traffic Police booked petty case against him not only for talking on cell phone while riding motorcycle, but also for non- production of insurance certificate and non-carrying of driving licence and Registration Certificate with him and other violations. Thereupon, A1 through A2 filed private complaint before the Magistrate against five Police Officers and personnel alleging offences under Sections 166, 203, 211, 342, 506, 323, 403, 384 I.P.C. The said case was filed against (1) J.Babu Prasad, Inspector of Police, Traffic Circle, (2) M.A.Rahiman, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Traffic Police Station, (3) G.Obulesu, Traffic Police Constable, (4) P.Moulali, Traffic Police Constable and (5) B.Pullaiah, Traffic Police Constable. The Magistrate referred the said complaint filed by A1 to the Police for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and it was registered as case in Crime No.257 of 2009 of II Town Police Station, Kurnool. Subsequently, the 1st respondent filed the present private complaint against A1 and A2 before the Magistrate and it was also referred to the Police for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and it was registered as case in Crime No.247 of 2009 of II Town Police Station, Kurnool. It is stated in the private complaint that when the 1st respondent gave report to the Inspector of Police, II Town Police Station, he failed to register the case after receiving the report. The 1st respondent herein did not figure as an accused in Crime No.247 of 2009. Therefore, the 1st respondent has no grouse against A1 or A2 to concoct a case as counter blast for Crime No.247 of 2009. The petitioner’s counsel pointed out certain discrepancies in timings in the petty case as well as in the present case. I am of the opinion that the said exercise would amount to appreciation of evidence, which is not permissible under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is for the Investigating Officer to note discrepancies in timings and to arrive at just and proper conclusion after collecting the entire evidence in the case. At this stage, I do not find any valid or legal reasons to interfere with investigation of this case at its threshold. 3. Hence, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ______________________________ JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU Dt:03.11.2011 ysk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.5102 of 2010 Dt:03.11.2011 ysk