IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE FIFTEENTH [15TH] DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN Present: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Criminal Petition No.5793 of 2007 & Criminal Petition No.2702 of 2008 Crl.P.No.5793 of 2007: Between: Shaik Abdul Satar & 3 others … Petitioners And: The State of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor High Court of A.P., Hyderabad & another … Respondents Crl.P.No.2702 of 2008: Between: Shaik Mohd. Rafi & others … Petitioners And: The State of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor High Court of A.P., Hyderabad & another … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Criminal Petition No.5793 of 2007 & Criminal Petition No.2702 of 2008 COMMON ORDER: These two petitions are filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash further proceedings in PRC No.65 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Allalgadda, Kurnool district. 2. Crl.P.No.2702 of 2008 is filed by A.1 to A.3 and Crl.P.No.5793 of 2007 is filed by A.4 to A.6 and A.9. As the two matters arise out of the same case i.e., PRC No.65 of 2007, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. The 2nd respondent herein filed a private complaint before the learned Magistrate against the petitioners and two others i.e., A.7 and A.8 alleging the offences under Sections 323, 354, 307, 448 and 506 IPC. The complainant is the mother-in-law of A.1. A.2 is the mother of A.1, A.3 is the brother of A.1 and A.4 to A.9 are the relatives of A.1. 4. It is not disputed that previously the complainant’s daughter filed a case against the accused alleging the offence under Section 498-A IPC and after full-fledged trial, A.1 to A.3 were convicted and they preferred an appeal, which is pending before the III Additional Sessions Judge, Nandyal. In the present complaint, it is alleged that all the accused have been pressurizing the complainant and her family members to agree for comprise and to accommodate them for seeking re-trial. It is further alleged that on 02.06.2007 at about 8 p.m. while the complainant, her husband and daughter were at home, all the accused came in a Tata Sumo vehicle and trespassed into their house and threatened them demanding compromise and that A.1 while abusing the complainant dragged her by catching hold of her hair and kicked her with leg; A.4, A.5 and A.9 similarly dragged the complainant’s daughter and abused and beat her. It is further alleged that A.6, A.7 and A.8 assaulted the complainant’s husband and beat him with hands. It is further alleged that A.1 stated that the problem will be solved if the complainant’s daughter Haseena is killed and so saying he caught hold of the complainant’s daughter by throat and attempted to kill her. According to the complainant, one Kamatham Pullareddi, Seelam Rammohan, Sattar Nagireddy, Kamatham Subba Reddy, Bachchapuram and Mohammed Hussain were present at that time and they came to the rescue of the complainant and her husband and daughter and saved them. After recording the statements of the witnesses, the learned Magistrate has taken the cognizance of the offences under Sections 448, 506, 323, 307 read with 149 IPC. Aggrieved by the same, the present petitions are filed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences against all the accused without due application of mind and ignoring the fact that the present complaint is only in the nature of abuse of process of law, as the complainant has been indulging in filing series of complaints against the accused. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand contended that specific allegations have been made against all the accused and the truth or otherwise thereof can be ascertained only after the evidence is let in during the course of trial. 6. It is to be noted that though the complaint is filed under various sections including Section 354 IPC, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance only of the offences under Sections 448, 506, 323 and 307 read with 149 IPC. Though in the order it is stated that cognizance of the offences is taken against A.1 to A.9, it is not as though the cognizance of all the offences is taken against all the accused. The ingredients of which of the offence is attracted against which of the accused would be considered while framing the charges at the appropriate stage. The complainant makes specific allegations against the accused attributing specific overt acts also. The truth or otherwise of the said allegations cannot be gone into at this stage, as it is a matter for appreciation after evidence is adduced. Prima-facie, the complaint contains specific allegations attracting the ingredients of the alleged offences. The names of the accused and specific overt acts attributed to them in respect of individual victims and the names of the witnesses are all mentioned in the complaint. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the statements of the witnesses recorded would contain inconsistent and contradictory omissions. 7. It is well settled that while considering the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the Court cannot embark upon the scrutiny of the evidence available on record nor enter the arena of appreciation of the evidence and the probative value of the witnesses. In the light of the specific allegations made in the complaint against the accused, the truth or otherwise which can be tested only at the time of trial, the question of quashing proceedings at this stage is not warranted. The contention of the petitioners that the complaint is filed only with a view to harass the accused and is therefore motivated also does not merit any consideration at this stage. In fact, the complainant also alleged the motive against the accused for the alleged offences saying that the accused resorted to coercive and violent methods to force the complainant and her people to enter into compromise and save them from the consequences of conviction. Whether the said motive alleged by the complainant is true or not is also a matter to be considered during the course of trial on appreciation of evidence. 8. In the circumstances, it is held that there are absolutely no valid or sufficient grounds to invoke the inherent and extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash further proceedings in PRC No.65 of 2007. 9. In the result, both the criminal petitions are dismissed. The interim stay granted earlier, stands vacated. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 15.07.2010 bss