THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION No.1568 OF 2009 DATED 29TH JULY, 2010. BETWEEN K.Nagendra Prasad …Petitioner/A.4 and 1) The State of A.P. 2) C.H.Victor …..Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION No.1568 OF 2009 ORDER: This criminal petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is filed by the petitioner-A.4 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.440 of 2003 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Anantapur, for the offence punishable under sections 418, 420 and 506 of Indian Penal Code. The case of the prosecution is that A.1 to A.4, who are the contractors, on 23.07.2002 assembled at Z.P. Guest House, Anatapur, gathered the particulars of contractors, who were intending to submit tenders for H.L.C. works of Gooty and Guntakal, made phone calls to them and threatened to cause danger to their lives and in order to get the tender they demanded the other contractors to quote higher prices. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a reading of the entire complaint does not disclose any offence against the petitioner as alleged by the prosecution and further the complaint is lodged by the Circle Inspector of Police and nobody lodged any complaint in writing stating that the petitioner or any other accused threatened them. Even at the time of filing charge sheet also the respondent-Police have not examined any individual as independent witness to depose before the Court regarding the alleged threat made by the petitioner or any other accused. This Court heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and also perused the entire material on record. As submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is unable to see any material to proceed further with the petitioner in view of the fact that the entire complaint does not disclose any offence attracting the ingredients of sections 420 and 418 and nothing is there on record to suggest that the petitioner committed the offence under section 506 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the memo of evidence appended to the charge sheet also does not disclose the names of any independent witnesses to corroborate the evidence of the complainant, who is none other than the police official. In view of the same, this Court is of the view that pendency of the complaint against the petitioner before the trial Court would amount to abuse of process of law. Hence, the complaint is liable to be quashed against the petitioner. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed and the further proceedings against the petitioner-A.4 in C.C.No.440 of 2003 on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Anantapur, are hereby quashed. ________________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO Dated : 29.07.2010 sur