Criminal Petition No. 7453 of 2009 · Andhra Pradesh High Court

08.11.2005, the petitioner appeared before the Court and when the complainant questioned him about the petition, the petitioner stated that it was not sent on his own accord and he does not know the contents in the said petition. At that stage, A1 got up from his seat and vociferously shouted in the Court hall addressing the Judge in singular name and created nuisance, causing hindrance the Court proceedings. It is also alleged that the sworn statement of the petitioner reveals the malfeasance of A1 to put the Judicial Officer malignantly in controversies and indulging to unethical practices by sending petitions through his clients with mendacious allegations. Therefore, the acts of both the accused are liable for prosecution. Under Section 186 IPC, there must be voluntary obstruction to any public servant in discharge of his official functions. There is no such obstruction caused by the petitioner. In so far as Section 189 IPC is concerned, there must be threat of injury to a public servant for the purpose of inducing the public servant to do any act, or to forbear or delay to do any act. None of the ingredients of the offences alleged would attract to the present case. The statements of the witnesses recorded by the police also do not disclose any prima facie offence, for which the petitioner can be prosecuted and therefore, continuation of the impugned proceedings against the petitioner herein are nothing but abuse of process of Court. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the proceedings in old C.C.No.106 of 2006 on the file of the III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajahmundry, which was renumbered as C.C.No.174/2008 on transfer to the Court of V Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajahmundry. Dated: 11.04.2012 Dsr __________________ K.C.BHANU,J