IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE EIGHTH (8TH) DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Criminal Petition No.5289 of 2010 Between: Kolanu Srinivasulu & another … Petitioners And: The State of A.P., through PS Narayanapur Nalgonda district, rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad & another … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Criminal Petition No.5289 of 2010 ORDER: This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash further proceedings in pursuance of FIR No.10 of 2010 of Narayanapur PS. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. None appears for the 2nd respondent, though served with notice. Perused the record. 3. On a complaint given by the 2nd respondent herein, Narayanapur PS registered a case against the petitioners in Cr.No.10 of 2010 for the offences under Section 504 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC, ST (POA) Act. According to the complainant, she belongs to S C Madiga community and is working as President of ‘Narayanapur Mahila Mandali Samakya Committee’ and that on 25.02.2010 she along with the committee members went to the house of 2nd petitioner- A.2 to enquire into the complaint received against A.2 regarding certain irregularities. It is further alleged that at that time, the first petitioner-A.1 who is husband of 2nd petitioner-A.2 intervened and abused the complainant in filthy language and also in the name of her caste and put her to shame in a street to the public view. The petitioners seek to quash further proceedings in Cr.No.10/10 on the ground that the 2nd petitioner-A.2’s name is no where referred to in the FIR and she is falsely implicated. The petitioners further contend that there was no mis-appropriation of the funds nor any mis-management in the Sangham and the alleged incident is false and the complaint is highly belated as the same was given four days after the alleged incident. 4. A perusal of the complaint would disclose that the entire allegations are made against the first petitioner-A.1 and no allegation whatsoever is made against the 2nd petitioner-A.2. As per the contents of the FIR, the complainant accompanied by the Secretary and Treasurer of the Committee, went to the house of A.2 to enquire into certain allegations received against the mismanagement by A.2 and at that time, A.2 husband of A.1 intervened and abused the complainant in filthy language and also in the name of her caste. It is no where stated in the complaint that A.2 uttered any abusive words against the complainant or A.2 abused her in the name of her caste or A.2 in any way aided or abated or instigated A.1 in the commission of the alleged offence. In the absence of any specific allegation against A.2 and no specific overt acts having been attributed to her and the complaint not disclosing the commission of any offence whatsoever insofar as A.2 is concerned, further proceedings against the 2nd petitioner-A.2 would only amount to abuse of process of law. It is well settled that when the complaint read as a whole, it does not disclose the commission of any offence by a person named as an accused, further proceedings against such person are not warranted and inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked to prevent abuse of process of law. 5. Insofar as the first petitioner-A.1 is concerned, the complaint discloses specific allegations made against him attracting the ingredients of the offence alleged, which require thorough investigation. It is equally well settled that the inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked to scuttle the investigation in to the complaint, which discloses prima-facie ingredients of the offence alleged. The impact of the delay of four days in giving the complaint cannot be taken into account at this stage and whether or not such delay is properly explained or it proves fatal to the prosecution is a matter to be considered after the evidence is adduced during the course of trial. In the circumstances, it is held that there are absolutely no valid or justifiable grounds to quash further investigation in Cr. No.10/10 insofar as the first petitioner-A.1 is concerned. However, further proceedings in FIR No.10/10 as against the 2nd petitioner-A.2 are held unsustainable and they are accordingly quashed. 6. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed insofar as the 2nd petitioner-A.2 is concerned and the same is dismissed in respect of the first petitioner-A.1. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 08.11.2010 bss