THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJU CRIMINAL PETITION No.7278 of 2009 BETWEEEN: 1. Sunil Rajgarhia, S/o.Ramakrishna Rajgarhia & 6 others. … Petitioners AND 1. The State of A.P. & another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.7278 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioners 1 to 7/A1 to A7 are accused of offences punishable under Sections 506(Part-I) and 109 I.P.C. in CC.No.330 of 2009 on the file of II Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam along with A8. It is alleged that on 15.02.2009 at 9:30 P.M., A8 along with two others came to the house of the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant at Visakhapatnam, pushed him inside, trespassed into the house, caught hold of him, fisted him and threatened him by saying that they would kill him if he did not withdraw the case filed by him against his daughter-in-law and others. It is the allegation of the 2nd respondent that A1 to A8 conspired to go to finish him and are threatening him and his family members. When basis of the complaint is the incident dated 15.02.2009 alone, and the said complaint formed part of FIR in this case, the Police filed charge sheet as if A1 to A7 threatened family members of the 2nd respondent through phone calls and abetted A8 to commit an offence. There is long run history of civil, criminal and marital litigation between the 2nd respondent’s family and his daughter- in-law’s family. A1 is uncle of the 2nd respondent’s daughter-in- law. A2 and A3 are maternal uncles of A1. A4 is son of A3. A5 is brother of the 2nd respondent’s daughter-in-law. A6 is brother- in-law of A1, A7 is stated to be a friend of A1. A8 is stated to be a friend and business associate of A3. In the charge sheet, the police showed A1 to A7 as absconding. A1 to A4 and A7 belong to Kolkata. A5 and A6 belong to Bhuvaneswar. In the charge sheet or the material attached thereto, there is no basis as to who threatened whom by phone. The 2nd respondent’s counsel placed a letter addressed by the 2nd respondent to the Inspector of Police giving details of calls received to mobile phones of his son and wife as well as land line of his residence from Kolkata. There is no investigation as to whom the Kolkata phone numbers belong to. There is no allegation that any of A1 to A7 talked to mobile phones of the 2nd respondent’s son and wife or to his landline residential number from the phones listed in the letter of the 2nd respondent to the police. In the absence of any allegations on facts, the question of the Police prosecuting A1 to A7 who are from Kolkata and Bhuvaneswar for making the alleged threatening calls does not arise. If any incident happened on 15.02.2009 at the residence of the 2nd respondent at Visakhapatnam, then A8 will face the prosecution for the said incident. A1 to A7 who are in Kolkata and Bhuvaneswar cannot be prosecuted by any amount of suspicion for an incident which is stated to have taken place on 15.02.2009 in the house of the 2nd respondent in which A8 participated. It is evident that A1 to A7 are being prosecuted herein as counter blasts for the previous marital and criminal disputes between the 2nd respondent’s family and his daughter- in-law and with an intention to arm-twist the accused for some settlement. I do not find any bonafides in the prosecution of A1 to A7 herein. 2. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed quashing proceedings in CC.No.330 of 2009 on the file of II Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam insofar as the petitioners 1 to 7/A1 to A7 are concerned. _____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Dated: 24.03.2011 ysk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJUL CRIMINAL PETITION No.7278 of 2009 DATED: 24.03.2011 ysk