IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.5313 of 2009 DATE:29.10.2010 Between: N.Mogulappa and others …… Petitioners And: State of A.P. rep. By P.P. High Court, Hyderabad And another …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.5313 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioners 1 to 3/A-1, A-2 and A-4 are accused of offence punishable under Section 506 I.P.C in C.C. No.174 of 2009 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Mahaboobnagar. A-2 is son of A-1. In the charge sheet, A-4 is described as wife of A-1. According to the petitioners, A-4 is not wife of A-1 but is daughter-in-law of A-1, she being wife of A-2. In the charge sheet, A-4’s age is given as 70 years. According to the petitioners, A-4’s age is 31 years. It only demonstrates lack of proper investigation by the police and improper identification of A- 4. 2) There is no dispute that there has been property dispute between A-1 and the 2nd respondent/defacto-complainant with regard to the house portion in which A-1 has been residing with his family. Previously the 2nd respondent gave another report against A-1 alleging certain offences under I.P.C regarding that dispute. It is alleged that because of filing of that criminal case, A-1 to A-5 started threatening the 2nd respondent through one land line phone and three cell phones whose numbers are given in the report as well as in the charge sheet, threatening the 2nd respondent with dire consequences in case he pursues the previous case and persists in the dispute regarding house property. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that false case was foisted particularly against A- 1 and that during the relevant period, A-1 was out of India from 11.03.2008 to 11.12.2008 and therefore he could not have threatened the 2nd respondent through Indian phones on 14.05.2008. The petitioners’ counsel filed Photostat copies of his passport containing stamping of immigration authorities to show that he left India on 11.03.2008 and returned to India on 11.12.2008. On the other hand, it is contended by the 2nd respondent’s counsel that having regard to the technology available, there can be a conference call from abroad through a local Indian telephone and that therefore simply because A-1 is out of the country, it cannot rule out possibility of threatening through phone through a conference call. In that view of the matter, I do not find any substance in the petitioners’ contention on this aspect at this stage. It is a matter which has to be decided by the Magistrate after recording entire evidence to be let in by both the parties. 3) It is further contended for the petitioners that there are no allegations touching ingredients of Section 506 I.P.C in this case. Having regard to the allegation that the 2nd respondent was threatened to be killed and was threatened with death of his son who had undergone bypass surgery for heart etc., I do not find force in the contention put forward by the petitioners’ counsel. Having regard to lack of proper identity of A-4, this Court is of the opinion that prosecution cannot be permitted against the 3rd petitioner/A-4 which amounts to abuse of process of law. 4) In the result, the petition is partly allowed quashing proceedings in C.C. No.174 of 2009 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Mahaboobnagar in so far as the 3rd petitioner/A-4 is concerned; and the petition is dismissed in respect of the petitioners 1 and 2/A-1 and A-2. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J October 29, 2010 KSH