THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION No.2652 OF 2007 DATED 15th JULY, 2010. BETWEEN Guduru Bhaskara Reddy ..Petitioner-Accused and 1) Somalapalli Jaya Bharata Reddy 2) The State of A.P. ..Respondent-Complainant THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION No.2652 OF 2007 ORDER: This Criminal Petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is filed by the petitioner-accused seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.447 of 2003 on the file of the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tirupati. The prosecution case is that land disputes were existed between the complainant and the accused. While so, on 03.01.2002 when the complainant was removing thorny bushes in the dispute land, A.1 and A.2 abused and threatened him with dire consequences. Again on 04.01.2002, when the complainant was at the field, A.2 to A.5 at the instigation of A.1 and A.6, criminally trespassed into the said land, abused the complainant and his labourers in filthy language, tried to beat the labourers with stones and also threatened the complainant with dire consequences to see his end, if he again enters into the land. Heard. Learned counsel for the petitioner in his arguments raised two grounds in support of his case. One is that the investigating agency examined as many as seven witnesses. But none of those witnesses stated anything about the presence of the petitioner at the scene of offence or his participation in the said offence. The second ground raised by him is that on the date of incident, petitioner was present in some other place to attend a Court case. Therefore, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner-A.6. This Court perused the entire material on record, which goes to show that the witnesses in their 161 Cr.P.C. statements recorded during the course of investigation stated regarding the involvement of four ladies and it is the specific case of the witnesses that said four ladies entered into the field, scolded the de facto complainant and also forcibly pushed him. Thus, the 161 Cr.P.C. statements make it crystal clear that the petitioner was not present at the scene of offence. But unfortunately the investigating officer while filing charge sheet added the name of the petitioner as an accused without assigning any reasons for the same. In these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the further proceedings against the petitioner are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed and the further proceedings in C.C.No.447 of 2003 on the file of the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tirupati, are hereby quashed against the petitioner-A.6. ________________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO Dated : 15.07.2010 sur