The High Court · 2025

Order

Heard Smt. Devineni Radha ttani, leamed counsel representing Sri M.Rajender Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Smt.

Shalini Saxena, leamed counsel lepresenting Sri Patle Nageshwara Rao, leamed Public Prosecutor appcaring fbr State. Dcspite service of notice, there is no representation ort lrehalf of 2"'] respondent.

2. This Criminal Petition is lllc-d under Scctiorr 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 tlbr short, 'BNSS') to quash the cognizance order dated 28.03.2011 lirr the ofl'cnccs punishable under Sections 504 ofIPC and Section .lt I)(r ) (s) olscheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention ol'Atrocities) Act. 1989 (Arnendment Act,2015) (for short, the SC&Sl',Act') and issuing summons to the petitioner herein/accused in SC.St'I..No.46 of' 7024 by the Special Sessions Court for SCs/STs (POAl .'\r:t, 1989, Nalgorrda. Facts of the case:-

3. On the complaint datcd 01.11.2023, thc'Policc, Kattangoor Police Station, have rcgistered a casc in Cr-No. 185 of 2023 against the petitioner herein. ln the said corttplaint, 2''d resptrndent stated that he 2 ..J crt i) N,rllt1t.r'1014 .l.eam was working as a Member of Flying Squad (IrS.f ) tearn and he was on election duty in Kaftangoor. It came to r-ris notice rhat on 01.11.2023, the petitioner, the FomerDeputy Chainnan of l.elangana [-cgislative Council, on 31.10.2023 at about l]0 p.M.. carne ro Kattangoor village for the purpose of participarin-e in elecrion carlrpaign, gavc speech on the road at Kattangoor certre. IIe abused thc then sittin-e Mcmber of I_egislative Asscnr )l). (MLA) li-on1 Nakrckal Assenrbly Constituency belongs to BRS p, r1\, ir1 abusiyc and tilthy languagc. The petitioner belongs to Kapu cornrnurrirt.. the pctitioner insulted the sitting ML,zr ,rl- Nakrcka I , a Mernber ol SC/S I corrrnunity and therefore, hc req.rested rhc S ub lnspcctor ol- Police, Kattangoor police Station, to tr ke actiol asainsr- the pctitioner herein. '['herelbre,

4. On receipt of- the said complaint, the police, Krrttangoor ftzrve registered ihe aloresaid crime against the petitioncr. l_rerein lbr tllc a lbrcsaid offences.

5. During the course of investigation, the Invcstigating Ol-fl<;er has recorded statements of 2nd respondent as L. W. I , Sr_i Vrtukrr * Edukondalu, who has suhmitted a complaint to the 2,,,r iespondent <)n 0l.l I.202j, cye rvihess, as L.W.2, puligilla .v.c^kir.,a. rvfeo J KL.J Crl.l' Nolllll o1 202,1 videographed speech of accused in lris cell phone, transferred the same into pen drive and handed over to L.W. I, Katikam Srini, Mooda Sushma, Pogula Anjaiah, Mainam Deender, as L.Ws.4 to 7, the victim as L.W.8, a police personncl, thc circumstantial witness as L.W.9, who photographed and videographed the entire staternents of witnesses, the panch witnesses to the seizure o f pen drive as I-. W. I 0 and tl, panch witnesses for the sccne of of'fence, rough sketch as L.ws. l2 and 13 and Tahsildar, Narkatpally, who issued castc certificate to the victim as L.W. 14 and 'l'ahsildar, Nakrekal. who issued caste certihcate of the petitioner/acc used, as t-.W. 15. On consideration of the said statements, the Investigating Otficcr taid charge sheet against the petitioner herein lbr the afbresaid o t'tcnccs

6. Vide docket order, dated 28.03.2024, learned Spccial Sessions Judge for trial of SCs/STs (POA) Act Cases -curn-ll Additionat District and Sessions Court at Nalgonda, took coqniz.ance of the aforesaid offences against the petitioncr herein. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed the present criminal petition

7. Smt. Devineni Radha Rani. learned counscl lor the petitiorrcr would contend that the contents of the said complaint tack the ingredients of the aforesaid offenccs against the petitioner herein. -) 4 ii i..i Crl P \olllll ol l0l4 There is delay of one day in lodging the complain:. Victim was examined on 06.1 1.2023 i.e. after seven days of the alleged incident and after six days of registration of the said crime. The 2nd respondent is neither victim nor an eye witness. On his complaint. the Police cannot registcr the afbrcsaid case against the petitioner and u'ithout considering the said aspects, tl.re Investigating Of irc,:r laid charge sheet against the petitioner herein, leamed Special Courl took cognizancc ol ttre aloresaid of'fences against the petitioner heleirr. l' 'r respondent is not cornpetent to lodge a complaint. Evsn 2nd rcspondent has to subnrit the said complaint to the District Clollector', District Election Otllcer not to the police, Kattangoor Po ice Station. 'l he cognizance ordcr dated 28.03.2024 is not on consideration ol' the aloresaid aspects. With the said submissions, the petitioner sought tcr quash thc cognizance older.

8. S/hereas. Smt. Shalini Saxena, leamed counsel represcnting Sri Palle \ageshrr,ar Rao, learned Public Prosecutc,r wottld contend that though 2'"1 respondent is not a victirn or an eye v,'ituess, basitrg on the complaint of L.W.2, dated 01.11.2023, he had lodged a complaint rvith police on 0 I . I | .2023 . He is an informant ard there forc, the present proceedings arc maintainable. On considerlti,ln ol'the said ) Kl-,I a'rl P Nol ll l7 nl"1074 aspects and statements of the aforesaid witnesses and material, the Investigating Officer laid charge sheet against the petitioner herein and the trial court took cognizance of the aforesaid offences against the petitioner herein. There is no error in it. The contentions of the petitioner herein are defences which he has to take betbre the trial Court and it is for the trial Court to consider the samc.

9. As discussed supra, the 2nd respondent is ncither a victitn nor a cornplainant. He has lodged a complaint dated 0 I .l I .2023 on receipt ol' the complaint lrom L.W.2.

10. Perusal of the said complaint dated 0l .11.2023 of L.W.2 :rnd his statement recorded under Section 161 olCr.P.C. would reveal that the petitioner abused L.W.8, sitting MLA tl'om Nakrckai Asscmbly Constituency by referring his caste natne and insulted him -I'he sarne was on 31.10.2023 at about 1.30 a.m. at Kattangoor -I-herefore, he requested the 2nd respondent to take action against the petitioner herein. il Even according to the 2nd respondent. the atteged incident took place on 31.10.2023 at 1.30 A.M. and he has submitted the said sornplaint only on 01.11.2023. There is delay of onc day. There is no explanation from L.W.2 with regard to the said delay. 6 KI-.I Crl P. No I ll l2 of.1024

12. It is also relevant to note that even L.W.2 is not a victim and he has not stated that he was present on 31.10.1102.3 at the spot. Thereflore, he is not an eye witness or victim.

13. Perusal of the rccord would also reveal that the Investigating Olficel l.ras recordcd the statement of r ictim L.W.8 only on 06. I I .2023 i.e. rifier sevcn (7 ) days of the atlegcrl incident and six (6) days from registration of crir.nc.

14. In his staternent, L.W.8 stated that he can-re to know about said abusive language uscd bv the petitioner on3l.1i).2023 during the election campaign on behalf of Clongress party canc idate through [-ris closc associates.

15. Accordine to liin, I-.\\'.1, L.W.3 are President and Gencral Secretary o1'Manrlal llltS parry. I hcy t.rave sent video through rnobile phone and also in pcn dlive. I)erusal of the statements of LWs. 2 to 4 also rvould revcal that thev arc not eye witnesses. 'l'hcy have not stated that they \\.ere present at thc spot. L. W.4 is a businessman and according to him, hc is running a garment shop in the name and style ol'Srinivasa vastlala)/am'. He has also not stated thrrt he was prcsent at the spot rvhile the petitioner abusing the 2nd respcndent. L.W.5 is also claiming that she is also running a garment shop in the namc and 7 KL.J Crl P Nol lll2 oflL)2.l style of 'Sairam vastralayam'. Her statement is also in the line of L.W.4. L.W.6 is claiming that he is a lorry driver and he was present on 31.10.2023 near CPM office at tea stall and having tea. His statement is contrary to the statement of L.W.2. L.W.7 is ctaiming that he is a strect vendor and doing fruit business on his mobile cart. His statement is also contrary to the statement and other witnesses. Witliout considering the said aspects, the Investigating Ofticer taid chargc sheet againsl. the petitioner herein.

16. As discussed supra, the offences alleged against the petitioner helein are under Sections 504 IPC and Section 3( I ) (r) ts) of SC--/ST (POA) Act and the same are extracted below:- -50{. Intentional insult with intent to provokc breach of the pcacc: Whocver intcntionally insults, and thereby gives provocarion to an_r pcrson. intcnding or knowing it to b€ likely that such prorocation u,ill cause him to break the public peace, or to comnrir an_r other oll'cnce. shall be punished with imprisonment of either description lbr a tcrm u,hich may extend to two years, or with llnc. or uith both. Section -3(l) (r ) (s) of thc SC/ST Act, deals with:- (l) Whocver, not bcing a member of a Schedulcd Caste or a Schedulcd Tribe.- r) intcntionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member o1'a Schoduled Castc or a Scheduled Tribe in an1, placc rr.ithin public vicu; ) 8 Kl ,l Crl P Nollill of2024 (s) abuscs any mcmber ol a Scheduled Caste or a Scl cdulcd 'l ribe by caste trame in any lttacc within public vicw;

17. As per the complaint, pctitioner abused L.\V.li, Sitting MLA from Nakrekal Constituency and even if the sai,l allegations are considered to be true, there is no liketihood of causilg provocation to L.W.8 to break public peace, to aLtract the offence r nder Section 504 of IPC. As discussed supra. L.\!'. t is neither an c),e rvitness nor victim. He has lodged thc a{irresaid complaint basinl1 on cornplaint of L.W.2. The InvestigaLing Ol-tlccr did not send t[.re rrllcged speech of the petitioner to FSI- and did nor obtain FSL report. '['here is delay of one day in todging the contplaint. \rictim statement r,.as recorded after seven (07) days therc arc contr-rdictions in the statements of the aforesaid rvi tr.rcsses.

18. It is not in disputc that tlie petitioner hercin was MLC and Deputy Chairman ol Legislative Council at the reler ant poir.rt of time and L.W.8 was Sitting Ml.A fionr Nakrekal Asseml:>lv Constituency and belongs to Ruling l)ar1v. l-here is potitical rivalry bctween them.

19. It is thc specific contcntion of the petitioncr that he was implicated in the prcse nt casc crinrc due to politica n valry between him and L.W.8. 9 K L.J Crl P Nol l3l2 o42024

20. As discussed supra, the 2nd respondent is not an eye witness to the incident or victim. He has lodged the said complainr on

01.11.2023 on the complaint of L.W.2. Even L.W.2 is neither a victim nor an eye witness. Othel witnesses are also did not say that they were present at the spor. Admitredly, there is delay of 24 hours in lodging the complaint by L.W. I the SHO of Kanangoor. Admittedly, the statement ol l-.W.[l/victim was recorded after seven days ol thc alleged incident. Thcrc is no explanation from L.W. I with regard to the said delay. Wirhout considering the said aspects, the Investigating Otficer laid charge sheet against the petitioner herein. Thus. the contents of conrplaint dated 01 . I 1.2023 and statements of the afbresaid witnesses lacks the ingredients of the aforesaid oflences alleged against thc petitioner herein.

21. Vide docker order dated 28.03.2023, leamed Judge, took cognizance of the afbresaid offences against the petitioner herein stating that perusal of the charge sheet and other material on record, found, prima|acrc case and having satisfied, taken cognizance for the albresaid oflences against the petitioner and registered it as SC.SPL.No.46 of 2024. l0 KL.I (lrl l' Nol l3l: oii024

22. As discussed supra, neither L.W.2 nor [. W. I are eye witnesses or victims. Basing on the hearsay evidence, L.W.2 has lodged a complaint with L.W.1 and basing on the said complaint, L.W.I lodged a complaint with the SHO of Kattangoor ))olice Station. Therefore, they cannot be considered as inlbrrttants. Without considering the said aspects, the Investigating C)fliccr laid charge sheet against the petitioner hercin.

23. As discusscd supra, there is one day dclay' n lodging the subject complaint and thcrc is no explanation o ft-ered bi' L.W. 1. 24, With regard to the unexplaitied abnormal dclal', the Apex Court in Hasmukhlal D. Vora v. Statc of T.N.l 22-There has been a gap of'more than tilur years bctu'c:n Lhe initial investigation and thc liling of the complaint. and cvc'r a{tc[ Iapse of substantial au'lounl ol' titlc. no cvidence has lrccn provided to sustain the claims in thc coniplairrt. As held by this (l,urr in Bijoy Singh v. Statc of llihar []ijo; Sinsh r,. Statc ol't]ih.rr. (2002) 9 SCC 147 : 2003 SCC (Clri) 109.11 inordinatc dclay. il not reasonably explaincd. can bc latal to the case ol'thc proseeution. The relevant cxtract liom thc iuclgrnent is cxtractcd b:loiv : (SCC p. 153, para 7) "7. ... Detay rvherever lound is requircd to be expllin,:d by the prosecution. ll thc dclay is reasonabl-"- explained. nt, advcrse ' (2022) ls scc 164 KL.J Crl.P No ll-l l2 of2021 inference can be drawn but lailurc to cxplain the delay would require the Court to minutel). cxanrinc the prosecution version for ensuring itself as to whethcr any innocent person has been implicated in the crime or not. lnsisting upon the accused to seek an explanation of lhe delay is not the rcquirement of law. It is always for the prosccution to c\plain such a delay and if rcasonablc. plausible and sufllcienr explanation is tendered, no adverse infercnce can be drau.n agarnst it.', 2i. In the present case. Ihe rcspondcnt has provided no explanation lor the cxtraordinar-r dclav ol'nrore than lour years between the initial sitc inspection- thc shorr -eausc r.roticc. and the complaint. In [hct, the absence ol such an erplanarion only prompts the Court to infer some sinister motivc lrehind initiating the criminal proceedings.

24. Whilc inordinare dclal in itscll rnay not be ground lor quashing of a criminal cornplaint. in such cascs- unexplained inordinate delay of such tenqrh n)ust be takcn into consideration iis a very crucial lactor as glounds lirr quashing a criminal complaint. 25 In the light ol'the said subrnission, it is relevant to exrract paragraph Nos. Ii and l6 olrhe jLrdgment of the Apex Court in Hazi Iqbal @ Bala through SPOA vs. Statc of UF and the same are as follows:- I5. At this stage. we u,ould likc to observe something importanr. Whenever an accused comL^s betbrc the Clourt invoking either the inherent pou,ers under Section 482 ol' the Code oI Criminal procedure (CrpC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under Arricle 226 ol thc Constitution to get the 2 Order dated 08.08.2021 in Crl A.No li.li ot l0t.t o, rhc Apcx Coun \ l

1.:.t a rl l' \(,l ll l2 ol l0l{ FIR or the criminal proceedings quasltcd essentialty on the rro.rnd that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted rvith the ulterior motivc for wreaking vengcancc, then in such ci cumstanccs the Court owes a duty to look into thc Irlll with care and a little rnore closely. We say so because oncc the contltlainant dccides to prorree'l allainst the accused with an ulterior motive for wrcaking personal vengeance. etc., then he would ensrue that the FlR./complaint is very well drarted r'"'ith all thc necessary pleadings. The complainant would ensure that the avcrmetlts made in the FlR/complaint arc such that thcy disclos': thc rrecessary ingredients to constitute tlie allcgcd oll'cnce. 'l hcrefore. it u iLl no1 be just enough for the Courl to look into thc avcrments madc in t['c F IR'complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining rvhcther the llccessa \ itlgrcdients to constitute the alleged ofl'ence arc discloscd or not. [n liivoi,rtt:, or \c\atious proceedings, the Court owes a dut) to look into nran,r other attcnding circumstances emerging from the record of the casc orci atrd aborc thc avcrments and, if need be- with dttc carc and circunlspecti,rn tr-) to rcad iu bctween the lines. l'he Court while exercising its.jurisdiction undcr Sectiorr 18:l ol llte Crl)(-- or Article 226 of the Constitution trcctl ttol. restrict itself on \ lo the stagc ol a case but is ertpowered to take illt() accoullt thc overril 'rir(rrrrxstan'es lcading to the initiation/registration ol' tlrc casc as rvcll :ts thc tnaterials collected in thc course of investigation. l'akc tbr instance the case on hand' Muttiple FIRs have been registcrcil over a pcriocl of tinre. [t is in thc background of such circumstances thc rcgistration o{' nlultiplc F II{s assumes inrportance, thereby attracting thc isstrc t)l' rvreakiuu. r,'trgeancc ctut ol private or personai grudge as allegcd. l(r. In State of Andhra Pradesh r', (iolconda [.inga Strarit,. i]01)'l) 6 SCC 522, a two-Judge Bench of this Coun claborated on thc t pes tif matcrials thc High Court can assoss to quasli an FlR fhe ('o rrt dreu a line distinction between considcralion of rnaterials ttrat \\lrc tr:trtlered as cvidence and appreciation of suclr cvidcnce. Onll' surh material that manifestly fails to prove the accusatiou in the FII{ can Ic L:onsidercd tbr quashing an FIR. The Courl held:- "5. ...Authority of the court exists lirr advancemcnt oi.iLsri':c and ifany attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produ,lc injLrstice, the court has power to prevent sttclt abuse. It rvould be tn :husc ol'the process of the court to allow anl action which rvoulci rtsuit in injtrstice an<i prevent promotion o1'justicc. ltl exercisc ol thc posers cotlrt \\'ould be justifred to quash any proceetling il it finds th.rr initiation or continuarce of it amounts to abusc ol' thc process of cottrL or quashing of ttrese proceedings would otherrvisc serve thc ends o1'.1rsti,:e- \\'hen r.to offence is disclosed by thc complaint. thc court ntay exatl ir-tt: the qucstion l-l KI,,J Crl.P, Nol ll ll of20t.1 of fact_ When a complaint is sought to bc quashcd, it is pemrissible to look into the materials to assess u,hat the cbmplainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out evcrr il thc altgations are accepted in toto.

6. InR.P. Kapur v. Stare of punjab. AII{ t960 SC 866 : 1960 Cri LJ 1239, this Court summarised some catcgorics ot'cases whcrc inherent power can and should be exercised to quash rhc procccdings : (AIR p.g69, para 6) !i) where it manif-estly appears that rhcrc is a legal bar against the institution or continuance e_g. \'ant ol sanction: (ii) where the allcgations in thc llrsr inlbrnration rcport or complaint taken at its lace valuc and acccptcd in their cntirety do not constitute the offcncc alleged: (iii) where thc allcgations conjrirLrrc an oll'ence, bri thcr. is no legal evidence adduced or rhc e'idcncc atltlLrced clcarll,or manilestly fails'to prove the charge.

7. In dealing w.ith rhe last catcgor\ . il is imporrant to bear in mind the distinction betu'ecn a case rrhclc Ihcr( is no rcgirl cr idencc or where there is evidence which is clearly inconsisrerrr rr rrh rhclccusations made, and a case where there is lcgal cvidcnce rrhiclr. ()n apprcciarion, may or may not support the accuszrtions. whcn cxercisirr.,..iLrristliction under Section 4g2 of the Code, the High Court u,ould nor ()rdinarilv embark upon an enquiry whether the et.idcnce in questiorr i., r.elilrhlc or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation rroultj not bc sustaincd. That is the function of the trial Judge. Jutlicial 1)r()ccss, no doubt should not be an instrument of oppression. or. ncetllcss harassuren[. Court should be circumspect and judicious in cxercising discretion and should take all relevant facts and circumstanccs inkr considcration belbre issuing process, lest it would be an instrument in rhc hands of a private compiainant to unleash vendetta to harass any pcrson neetllessly. At the samc time the section is not an instrument harlded o\ ilr to an iccused to short-circuit a prosecution and bring about its sLrcldcrr tleath... ... (1.)mphasis supplied)

1.1 KI-J rl 'Nnlllllol l02l 26 In State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal't'the Apex Court has also laid dorvn certain guidelines/parameters for exer:ise of power ol this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and the sanre arc extracted herein:- "1 l) Where the allegations nradc in thc lirst inlormation report or thc conrplaint. cvetr if th'rr arc takcn at their face value and acceptcd in their .':rtirctr do not prima facie constitutc any oflerrcc ol lnak( otrt a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations irr the llrst itllirrlrlatiorr tc1'orL and other materials, iIany. accompanyirrg thc IIli tltr not disclose a cognizablc olfencc, justil-ving arr investigation by policc officcrs under Scctiorr ljt'( I ) ol it ltilr thc Code except under an order of' a N4agistratc 'r thc purvicw of Section I 55(2) of thc (lodc. (-1) Where the uncontrovertcd allcgations nradc in the llll or complaint and thc cvidcncc collcctcd in :rtppotl of the same do not disclose tlte conlnrissiotl rl :ttlr rrflence and make out a case against thc accuscd. (4) Where the allegations in the [tl{ do trot cons ttLtlc rt cognizable offence but constitute only a l'orl' cognizable offence, no ittvcstigation is permiltc.J l'-r ri police olficer without an order ol a lvlagistratc as contemplated under Section I 55(2) ol tlre Oode. (5) Whcre the allegations madc in the Flll' or corLrplaint are so absurd and inherently improbablc on thc l'asis ol' rvhich no prudent person can ever reach rt iltst conclusion that there is sufficicnt groLrl d lor proceeding against the accuscd. (6) Where there is an cxpress legal bar cngralictl irt anr' of thc provisions of thc Codc or the Act cotrccrnc'tl (under which a criminal procccdit.tg is inslitutcd) t(' thc 1992 Supp (l) SCLI 335 KI..J Crl P Nolll t2 of2024 lnstrtution and continuance of thc procecdincs and/or where there is a specific provision in thc Coje or nct concemed, providing efficacious rcdrcss for the grievance ofthe aggrieved party_ (7) Where a criminal procecding is manifcsrly attended with mala fide ancUor. wheie thc p.o.lJing i, maliciously institutcd with an ,lt"rio, ,r,,r-tiu. fb. wreaking vengeance on thc accuscd and rvith o'uieru to spite him due to privatc and personal grrdg..;, With the said findings, relying on thc pararneters laid down in Bhajanlal (supra), the Apex Court quaslrcd trre F IR agai.sr rhe accused therein.

27. In the light of the samc, continuation ot. the proceedings against the petitioner lrerein is an abuse of pr()ccss of law. l.hs1s{iJ1g, thc impugned cognizancc order datccl 2g.04 1014 is tiabte ro be set aside.

28. Therefore, the criminal pctition is allorvcd. [_hc cognizance order dated 28.03.2024 Laking coguizarrcc tix. rhc olli:nces punishable under Sections 504 of IpC and Section 3(l) (r ) (s) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (pr.u,cntiou ol- Ariociries) Act, l9g9 (Amendment Act, 2015) and issuing slulrrn()ns to rhc pctitioner herein/accused in SC.SpL.No.46 ol. 2024 b_r, the Specia[ Sessions Court for SCs/STs (poA) Act, r9g9, at Nargorda, rs ser asidc and consequently the proceedings in SC.SpL.No.4(r o[. 2024 pcnding on l6 Kl-.1 CilP Noll I12l)f 1024 the file of Speciat Sess'rons Court lor SCs/STs (POA) 'rr'ct' 1989' at Nalgonda are quashed. Consequcntly, miscellaneous petitions pending if any' in this Crirnina[ Petition shall stand closed. Sd,. P.CH. NAGABHUSHAMBA DEPUTY REGISTRAR /ffRUE COPY'I / SECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 3 4 The Special Sessions Court for SCs/STs (POA) Act' '1089' Nalgonda The Station House Officer, Kathangur Police Station ' l'lak;onda District' One CC to Sri. M Raiender Reddy' Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor' High Court for the Slate of Telangana at HYderabad [OUTI

5. Two CD CoPies (iE/S\lI f Y+- HIGH COURT DATED: 0110412025 ORDER CRLP.No.11312 ot 2024 .-:'' .,,,.- $3 sLf 26 .i, i. CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED gc'( ^qe-,L- X{-