Judgment : 1. The present Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “Cr.P.C.”) to quash the proceedings in S.C.No.122 of 2008 on the file of the Court of Assistant Sessions Judge, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District. 2. It is urged by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the present petitioner is accused No.2 in S.C.No.122 of 2008. It is further urged that A-2 is working as ASI of Police in West Godavari District and the present complaint is motivated as the petitioner registered different crimes against the respondent No.2 and he submitted that the details of the crimes registered against respondent No.2, which reads as follows: 1. Crime No.137 of 2001 u/s 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 498-A of IPC registered by the petitioner herein. 2. Crime No.24 of 2002 u/s 323, 506(2) R/w Section 34 of IPC registered by the petitioner herein. 3. Crime No.1 of 2002 u/s 420 IPC registered by the Sub-Inspector of Chebrolu Police Station. 4. Crime No.100 of 2002 u/s 324, 506(2) r/w 34 of IPC registered by the Head Constable of Chebrolu P.S. 5. Crime No.9 of 2002 it is significant that Dandru Subba Rao the husband of the 2nd respondent filed another complaint against the S.I. of Chebrolu Police Station, and this petitioner citing them as A-1 and A-2 and 17 others on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tadepalligudem and the Ganapavaram Police, to whom this complaint was forwarded, registered Crime No.9 of 2002 referred the same as false. 6. The 2nd respondent also filed a complaint against Dy. Superintendent of Police, Eluru (who is the controlling authority on the Chebrolu Police Station) before the Lokayuktha, A.P., Hyderabad, alleging that when she was taken to him by the petitioner, she was abused by the said D.S.P. in filthy language. This complaint was also closed. 3. It is also further urged that the allegation in the complaint is that the petitioner herein took the 2nd respondent to the house of Deputy Superintendent of Police on 4.9.2002 where she was abused and scolded. It is urged that on 4.9.2002 the petitioner was on duty and did not go to the office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police and in proof of the same he filed the certified copy of the case diary dated 03.09.2002. It is urged that on 4.9.2002 the petitioner was on duty and did not go to the office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police and in proof of the same he filed the certified copy of the case diary dated 03.09.2002. Finally he further urged that the petitioner put in more than 35 years of service without any remarks and the present complaint is nothing but an abuse of process of law and that the 2nd respondent did not secure any sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. to proceed against the petitioner, who is a Public Servant. 4. Now the point for consideration is whether there are any grounds to quash the proceedings in S.C.No.122 of 2008 on the file of the Court of Assistant Sessions Judge, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District? 5. As seen from the complaint, as many as 13 persons are made as accused and the petitioner herein is arrayed as 2nd accused. The sum and substance of the averments in the complaint is that on 4.9.2002 the petitioner along with other accused came to the house of A1 and participated wrongful assembly and that on 05.09.2002 an attack was made on the complainant and her husband. The learned Magistrate having recorded the sworn statements of the witnesses under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. taken the complaint on file for the offences under Sections 109, 447, 323, 324, 379 read with Sections 511, 354 and 34 of IPC. The other accused have not challenged the proceedings before the learned Magistrate at the initial stage. Moreover, the present petitioner also did not raise any objection at the initial stage after taking cognizance of the matter by the learned Magistrate. 6. Admittedly, the complaint was taken on file as P.R.C.No.41 of 2002, thereafter it was committed to the Court of Assistant Sessions Judge, Tadepalligudem and re-numbered as S.C.No.122 of 2008. There is time gap, nearly six years from the date of registering the P.R.C. and Sessions Case. As already stated, the grievance of the complainant is against the 13 persons and the present petitioner is one among them. There is time gap, nearly six years from the date of registering the P.R.C. and Sessions Case. As already stated, the grievance of the complainant is against the 13 persons and the present petitioner is one among them. Having waited for all these years from the date of filing the complaint till it was numbered as Sessions Case No.122 of 2008, the filing of the petition to quash the proceedings in S.C.No.122 of 2008 that too by a single individual, who is arrayed as accused, in my view, is only an after thought and the reason is obvious. The petitioner pleaded an alibi by filing the case diary. The truth or otherwise of the alibi will be decided in due course of trial. 7. As the complaint was taken on the file against 13 accused and the petitioner is one among them and the filing of the present petition, at the time of the disposal of the Sessions Case No.122 of 2008, viewed from any angle, is a speculative one without any just and reasonable cause, much less without any basis to exercise inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, I see no grounds to quash the proceedings in S.C.No.122 of 2008 on the file of the Court of Assistant Sessions Judge, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District. 8. Accordingly the Criminal Petition is dismissed.