THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.2134 of 2007 Dated: 10th FEBRUARY, 2010 Between: A.Satyanarayana Rao And others …Petitioners/Accused AND The State of A.P., through SHO, Nellore Rural P.S., Rep by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. And another …Respondents / Complainant THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.2134 of 2007 ORDER: This petition is filed by the accused Nos.1 to 3 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR in Crime No.120 of 2006 of Chinna Chowk Police Station, Kadapa relating to offence punishable under section 365 I.P.C. The second respondent who is wife of the alleged victim Shaik Hussain gave report to the police stating that on 16.06.2006 at about 06:00 P.M., two persons came in Tata Sumo and asked her for her husband and they claimed to be from Allagadda and come in connection with panchayat about lands, and that as her husband was not available, they went away and that on 17.06.2006, the same persons came and talked to her husband and took him with them disclosing their identity as police personnel from Hyderabad and that at about 08:00 A.M. on the same day, her husband telephoned to her and informed her about the police from Hyderabad and another person who is driver of A-1 accompanying the police being taken him to Hyderabad and to A-1 and that they would send him back. It was further stated in the report that one person who was sitting by the side of her husband in the vehicle, took the phone and told her that she need not fear as her husband is being taken to Hyderabad and after reaching Hyderabad, her husband would be talking to her on phone once again. Thus, at the time of taking the second respondent’s husband from Kadapa in a vehicle, the two persons disclosed their identity as police personnel from Hyderabad. Unfortunately, Chinna Chok Police, Kadapa registered report of the second respondent as case in Crime No.120 of 2006 for offence punishable under Section 365 I.P.C., perhaps for the reason that the police who came from Hyderabad did not approach local police and did not inform the local police about purpose of their visit. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that the second respondent’s husband Shaik Hussain was taken by IDA Bolaram police of Medak District for questioning him in Crime No.22 of 2006 of that police station relating to offences punishable under Sections 483, 465, 506, 420 I.P.C. The petitioner filed copies of passports issued by the Sub-Inspector of Police, IDA Bolaram Police Station in Crime No.22 of 2006. Passport dated 15.06.2006 shows that it was given to B.Brahmaiah, Head Constable and Narender Rao, Police Constable, directing them to go to Kadapa district to apprehend the accused persons in Crime No.22 of 2006. Another passport dated 17.06.2006 issued at 2300 hours by the same Sub- Inspector to one police constable by name Narayana reads that the said police constable was directed to take Shaik Hussain after enquiry and to drop him at his house at Kadapa. These two records of IDA Bolaram Police Station clearly reveal that the alleged victim Shaik Hussain was taken from his house on 17.06.2006 at about 07:30 A.M. by two police constables from IDA Bolaram Police Station for the purpose of making enquiry in Crime No.22 of 2006 of that Police Station and that after enquiry, Shaik Hussain was sent back to Kadapa to his house. In the meanwhile, due to lack of information to Chinna Chowk police, they registered report of the second respondent as Crime No.120 of 2006. The Principal Sessions Judge, Kadapa, on 06.07.2006, granted Anticipatory Bail to A-1 in this crime on concession made by the Public Prosecutor before that Court that there is material available to show that Shaik Hussain was taken to Police Station for investigation purpose in connection with Crime No.22 of 2006 of IDA Bolaram Police Station by the police officials. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that there is no prima facie case at all in Crime No.120 of 2006 of Chinna Chowk Police Station, Kadapa for offence punishable under Section 365 I.P.C. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed quashing FIR in Crime No.120 of 2006 of Chinna Chowk Police Station, Kadapa. ___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J February 10, 2010 Bvv