Pilla Santhosh v. The State Of A.P
HONOURABLE Dr.JUSTICE B. SIVA SANKARA RAO Criminal Petition No.11519 of 2018 ORDER:
The petitioner is A.6 in C.C.No.455 of 2016 on the file of the Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Vikarabad, outcome of Cr.No.214 of 2016 registered for the offences punishable u/ Sec.341,186 and 286 IPC from the report of the 1st respondent/ defacto-complainant-Head Constable 2451 of Dharur Police Station on 11.10.2016. The police after investigation filed charge sheet. It is therefrom taken cognizance by the learned Magistrate against 8 accused including the petitioner as A.6.
2. The petitioner/ A.6 impugned the said cognizance order with contentions in the grounds of the quash petition vis-à-vis the oral submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner/ A.6 that trial of the C.C.No.465 of 2016 commenced on 22.02.2008 when P.Ws.2 and 3 were examined, on 05.03.2018 P.Ws.4 and 5 were examined, on 17.04.2018 P.W.6 was examined, on 06.09.2018 P.W.7 was examined and now it is coming for evidence of the Investigating Officer and while so, on 06.09.2018 for no progress in trial as Presiding Officer was on training till end of January, 2019, the matter was posted before the in-charge Magistrate, Chevella as FAC who was taking up the matters only on Fridays. The P.Ws.1 to 5 are not supporting prosecution case having turned hostile and on perusal of the deposition of the P.W.1-K.
Bhasker Reddy, it shows that he could not even recognize the petitioner. After taking into account of P.Ws.1 to 7, there are no allegations whatsoever against the petitioner and there are no any overt acts attributed to him either in the First Information Report or from the statements of witnesses during investigation or in the charge sheet therefrom much less from the evidence of the witnesses. The petitioner completed his B.Tech.
person to attract the offence u/ sc.341 IPC and there is no any obstructing of public servant in discharging of duties to attract the offence u/ sec.186 IPC and there is no public nuisance defining Section 268IPC and for all these reasons, the continuation of proceedings are nothing but abuse of process and thereby to quash the proceedings against him in the case supra.
3. The defacto-complainant even served failed to attend and taken as heard and also heard the learned counsel for the petitioner who reiterated the same and the learned Public Prosecutor in opposing the same saying when the case is at fag end, there are no grounds to quash the proceedings but for at best direct early disposal of the case by the In charge Magistrate, leave about by the time the matter came for hearing on 29.01.2019 even from the very quash petition averments the training of the regular Judicial Officer of Vikarabad Court comes to an end by January, 2019 in one or two days and thereby sought for dismissal of the petition but for at best to direct the trial Court the early disposal of the Case.
4. On perusal of the material, the defacto-complainant-Y.Muralidhar Head Constable-P.W.7 in his evidence deposed on 06.09.2018 that while he was working in Daroor Police Station during 24.11.2012 to 13.06.2017 on 10.11.2016 at about 6.00P.M., as per instructions of Sub Inspector, he went to Kerally village along with P.W.6-P.Rangaiah, L.W.3-N.Ramulu and L.W.4Y.Narender where there was Durga procession was going on and some inconvenience was caused to the vehicles on which they found that in that procession DJ sound boxes were used causing nuisance with heavy sound to the people who were dancing there, on that P.W.6-M.Santosh, the Sub Inspector of Police asked said persons as to they got any permission for using sound boxes for which they stated that they obtained no permission and further replied that he can do whatever he wants and as per his instructions of the Sub Inspector to record in cell phone, while the defacto-
complainant-P.W.7 was recording the same in his cell phone, the A.1 snatched away his cell phone and when the witness was asked to identify the accused in open Court, he identified said A.1-B.Balwanth Reddy and when P.W.6 tried to videograph the scene, the A.2-Sudharshan Reddy snatched away his cell phone and when the witness was asked to identify, he identified the A.2 Sudhershan Reddy and thereafter a huge crowd gathered and obstructed them from discharging their official duty and later they all returned back to the police station and P.W.7 lodged a complaint covered by Ex.P.8 and his statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer.
5. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he cannot identify the A.3 to A.8 and denied the suggestion of A.1 and A.2 never snatched the cell phones of P.Ws.6 and 7 respectively and leave about other crossexamination of P.W.6-Sub Inspector at relevant time deposed that on credible information, the L.W.11-Shamshuddin-Sub Inspector sent himself, P.W.7-Muralidhar, L.W.4-Y.Narender, L.W.3-N.Ramulu, to Karelly Village where the accused were using DJ sound system and creating nuisance to the public, accordingly they went there and on questioning, they informed that they have no permission to use DJ sound system from which when the P.W.6-Muralidhar while recording the same in cellphone, the accused persons snatched the cell phone from the P.W.7 and staged dharna at about 20 minutes and later they came to the police station where the P.W.
7 lodged a complaint and Investigating Officer recorded his statement. In the course of investigation, he deposed that he did not know any residents of Kerelly village lodged a complaint with regard to using of DJ sound system by the accused persons in the said procession of Durgamatha, including with Upender- the Inspector.
deposing the falsehood. P.W.6 did not depose about his cell phone was snatched away much less by the A.2 what all stated is his cell phone was snatched away by all the accused, whereas, the P.W.7 deposed of his cell phone snatched away only by the A.1 and he cannot even identify the A.3 to A.8 and P.W.5-Rangaiah of the village turned hostile and there is nothing elicited from his evidence including as to he was a panch witnesses for any rough sketch or scene observation and seizure of tractor with DJ sound boxes and P.W.4-P.Mahender Reddy also did not support any prosecution case and denied about any panchanama conducted in his presence and said seizure and P.W.3-G.Malla Reddy also did not support the prosecution case saying he does not know anything about the case so also the P.W.2M.Santhosh Kumar and P.W.1-K.Bhasker Reddy respectively.
6. Once such is the case, even from the examination of the Investigating Officer of his registration of crime, investigation and filing of chargesheet respectively, there is nothing insofar as the petitioner-A.6 concerned. In view of the above, there is no necessity of waiting till delivering judgment along with other accused including the A.1 and A.2.
7. Having regard to the above, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the proceedings against the petitioner/ A.6 in C.C.No.455 of 2016 on the file of the Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Vikarabad and he is acquitted and his bail bonds shall stand cancelled. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. ____________________________ Dr. JUSTICE B. SIVA SANKARA RAO Date:22.02.2019 vvr