Criminal Petition No. 2960 of 2008 · Andhra Pradesh High Court

This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner – A1 in PRC

No.18 of 2008 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Proddatur.

It is the case of the petitioner that I Town Police, Proddatur filed charge sheet against 19 persons for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 326 and 307 read with 149 IPC in Crime No.32 of 2007 before the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Proddatur. The name of the petitioner was not shown as an accused in the charge sheet. The Police implicated the petitioner basing on the complaint of the de facto complainant and after conducting the investigation, the police filed charge sheet against A2 to A20 and deleted the name of the petitioner. While taking cognizance, the trial Court came to the conclusion that prima facie case is made out against the petitioner and impleaded him as A1.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the name of the petitioner was deleted by the police, the trial Court without assigning any reasons took cognizance against him.

As seen from the charge sheet, it is alleged that on 14-03- 2007, at about 9-30 A.M., List Witnesses (LWs) 1 to 5 went to the survey place. While survey was going on, A2 to A20 armed with hunting sickle, iron rods, cycle chains, came to the LWs.1 to 5, and A1 stated that “YENDHIRA EENAKODUKULA THO ROJJU, VEELLANU CHANPANDHIRA”. That means, A1 instigated the other accused, and on his instigation, all the accused attacked the de facto complainant and others, causing bleeding injuries. Specific overt acts are attributed against each of the accused. On the sole ground that LWs.10 to 12 have stated that A1 did not participate in the commission of offence, his name was deleted. As a matter of fact, the presence of A1 and on his instigation, other accused beat the de facto complainant and others has been specifically stated by LWs.1 to 12.

Therefore, without there being any reason, the police, basing on the statements of LWs.10 to 12, wanted to delete the name of the petitioner from the charge sheet. It is not for the police to delete the name of the petitioner basing on the statements of some of the witnesses, when there is statements of other witnesses, who spoke about the presence and participation of the petitioner at the time of the commission of offence. It is specifically stated by List Witnesses 1 to 5 that on the instigation of petitioner-A1, other accused beat the de facto complainant and others. In the facts and circumstances of the case, police ought not to have deleted the name of the petitioner from the array of accused in the charge sheet. It is for the Court to adjudicate about presence and participation of petitioner in respect of offences after the evidence that may be adduced by the prosecution. Therefore, basing on the material available on record only, the trial Court rightly took cognizance of the offence against A1 also.