V.Bhushanam v. The State of A.P

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION No.1166 OF 2009 ORDER: This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is filed by the petitioner-A.4 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.68 of 2007 on the file of the Additional Munsif Magistrate’s Court, Chirala, for the offence punishable under Sections 344, 346 and 365 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. It is pertinent to mention here that at the relevant point of time, the present de facto complainant worked as a constable and the petitioner worked as the Sub-Inspector of Police in Chirala Sub-division. The allegations leveled in the complaint lodged by the de facto complainant, in a nutshell, are that A.1 to A.3 with the active help of A.4, petitioner herein, threatened the brother of the complainant and his family members with dire consequences on 25.08.2004 at 10.00 p.m. due to canal disputes, for which, a complaint was lodged against the accused and telegrams were also sent to the higher officials complaining about A.4, but no action was taken against the accused.

It is further alleged that A.4 under the impression that the complainant was behind those telegrams, bore grudge against the complainant, went to his house in his absence and threatened the wife of the complainant with dire consequences. It is also alleged that A.4 threatened the brother of the complainant on 18.01.2005 at 9.00 p.m., for which, he (brother of the complainant) lodged a complaint on the same day. As against the same, A.1 in collusion with A.4 foisted a false complaint against the de facto complainant and his brother. It is also alleged that on 20.01.2005 in the evening hours accused kidnapped the complainant, blindfolded him, took him to an unknown place and confined him in a room where A.4 threatened to kill him by way of encounter. While the matter stood so, the wife of the complainant gave representations before superior authorities and also sent telegrams to High Court and on coming to know the same, accused released the complainant.

Hence, the complaint. Heard. On a perusal of the material, it is seen that the present petitioner, who is the Sub-Inspector of Police, has registered crime Nos.7 and 8 of 2005 of Vetapalem Police Station against the de facto complainant for the offence punishable under Sections 447, 427 and 506 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 324, 506 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code respectively. Crime No.7 of 2005 was investigated by the petitioner wherein charge sheet is also filed, whereas, crime No.8 of 2005 was referred as ‘false’ after obtaining necessary permission from the superior Police Officials. Further, it is seen from the records that the de facto complainant has not lodged any complaint specifically before the concerned Police officials and he has not produced the copy of the complaint also and the superior officers also not taken any action against the petitioner in view of the fact that the allegations are false in nature and the reading of the complaint also does not disclose the specific overt acts against the petitioner.