Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 233 (AP)

C. N. v. Subba Reddy VS State Of A. P.

2006-02-22

P.S.NARAYANA

body2006
( 1 ) THIS Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C. C. No. 115 of 2002 on the file of the learned I Additional judicial First Class Magistrate, Kadapa. ( 2 ) THE Sub-Inspector of Police, I Town police Station, Kadapa, filed charge-sheet against the petitioner A-1 and another in crime No. 53 of 2002 for the offences punishable under Sections 143,341 and 506 ipc. ( 3 ) SRI Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel representing the petitioner, had raised the only and principal submission that inasmuch as there are only two accused, charge under section 143 IPC cannot be sustained. The learned counsel in all fairness would submit that the suit in O. S. No. 225 of 2000 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, kadapa, was dismissed for default on 5-3-2002 and the same was restored thereof, and thatthe injunction which had been granted earlier is in force or not, are all the aspects which may have to be gone into at the appropriate stage. ( 4 ) PER contra, learned Public Prosecutor would maintain that in the light of the orders which had been made in Crl. M. P. No. 1137 of 2002 in the above C. C. and also in crl. R. C. No. 40/2002 on the file of the Court of sessions, Kadapa, this is not the stage where any interference is called for. ( 5 ) HEARD the learned counsel. ( 6 ) THE de facto complainant is resident of kadapa town and he is a Government Doctor and also running Pragathi Nursing Home near RTC Bus Stand, Kadapa. It is stated that the petitioner herein filed a sult in o. S. No. 225 of 2000 on the file of the Principal junior Civil Judge, Kadapa, against the wife of the de facto complainant by name Nirmala and three others praying for declaration and for mandatory injunction. The suit was dismissed on 5-3-2002. On 9-3-2002 at about 3. 00 p. m. , it is stated that, the incident in the present case had happened. On a complaint made by the de facto complainant, Crime no. 53 of 2002 of Kadapa Police Station was registered against the petitioner herein (A-1) and another (A-2) for the offences as stated supra. On 9-3-2002 at about 3. 00 p. m. , it is stated that, the incident in the present case had happened. On a complaint made by the de facto complainant, Crime no. 53 of 2002 of Kadapa Police Station was registered against the petitioner herein (A-1) and another (A-2) for the offences as stated supra. It is no doubt true that O. S. No. 225 of 2000 was dismissed for default and the same had been restored thereof and the injunction granted earlier is said to be in force. It is also stated that the petitioner herein filed crl. M. P. No. 1137 of 2002 in the above C. C. praying to discharge him and the same was dismissed, which was carried by way of revision in Criminal Revision Petition No. 40 of 2002 on the file of the learned Sessions judge, Kadapa, and the same was also dismissed by order dated 15-4-2003. ( 7 ) IT is no doubt true that several of the facts, which had been narrated in the charge- sheet may have to be gone into at an appropriate stage. At a glance, it is clear that there are only two accused who are arrayed as accused in the aforesaid C. C. As can be seen from the charge-sheet, it is clear that the petitioner herein, A-2 and some others came to the scene of offence and threatened the de facto complainant and L. W. 2-B. Uma devi to stop the construction. It is true that the said allegation in the charge-sheet is a vague allegation. Section 141 IPC deals with unlawful assembly and 143 IPC deals with punishment. When two accused alone are shown, despite the fact that a vague allegation was made that some other persons are there, this Court is of the opinion that the ingredients of either Section 141 or 143 IPC cannot be attracted. Hence, the charge-sheet under section 143 IPC cannot be sustained and accordingly, the charge-sheet is quashed so far as the offence under Section 143 IPC alone is concerned. It is needless to say that the learned Magistrate can further proceed with the matter in relation to the other off ences with which the petitioner had been charged with. The criminal petition is partly allowed to the extent indicted above.