Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 821 (AP)

B. v. S. S. Ramana Murthy VS State of A. P. rep

2006-07-12

M.VENKATESWARA REDDY

body2006
ORDER : M. VENKATESWARA REDDY, J.:— A. 4 in P.R.C. No. 7 of 2004, on the file of the VII-Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam is seeking quashing of the said proceedings as against him in this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. At the relevant point of time he was Sub-Inspector of police, V-Town Police Station, Kancharapalem Visakhapatnam. 2. There are four accused in the P.R.C. As per the allegations in the compliant, the complainant, second respondent herein, filed a suit on O.S. No. 762 of 2003 against A-3 and obtained interim orders in respect of a site. It is alleged that after obtaining interim orders, the petitioner/A-4 called her and directed her not to stop the accused from entering the land. On 25-05-2003 she found A-1 and A-2 in the site and she alleges that she was assaulted by A-1 and A-2. It is further alleged that when she went to lodge a complaint to V-Town Police Station, A-4 made her to wait till 11.00 p.m., and ultimately, declined to register a case. 3. The complainant in her statement before the Court kept silent about the allegation of A-4 calling her and directing her not to stop the accused from entering the site. The only allegation made in her statement before the Magistrate is that she waited outside the police station till 11.00 p.m., but the S.I. refused to register the case. Thus, the allegation that A. 4/Sub-lnspector of Police, directed her not to stop the accused from entering the land is given a go-by. In fact, it is the prime allegation made against A-4 in the compliant. 4. Coming to the non-registration of her report, if a police officer refused to record the information received by him given by the complainant, the latter is entitled under S. 154(3) Cr. PC him given by the complainant, the later is entitled to send the substance of the information he or she wanted to give, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned, who, if satisfied that such information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, shall either investigate the case himself or direct that investigation shall be made by any police officer subordinate to him. Be that as it may, the fact that in the compliant a specific allegation is made against A-4 that he gave directions to the complainant and the same is not mentioned in the statement before the learned Magistrate would obviously disclose that the police officer is made an accused in this case with some ulterior purpose. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that no sanction as contemplated under Section 197. Cr. P.C. is also obtained. As pointed out, there are inherent improbabilities in the complainant's case. The Supreme Court in State of Orissa Through Kumar Raghvendra Singh v. Ganesh Chandra Jew, 2004 (2) ALT (Crl.) 71 (SC) : 2004 SCC (Cri) 2104 held that where the compliant is coupled with inherent improbabilities it can be quashed. Accordingly, this petition has got to be allowed. 6. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the proceedings in P.R.C. No. 7 of 2004, on the file of the VII-Metropolitan Magistrate Visakhapatnam, in respect of the petitiner/A-4 only.