Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 278 (AP)

Maddigapu Hima Bindu v. State of A. P.

2019-10-16

U.DURGA PRASAD RAO

body2019
ORDER : U. Durga Prasad Rao, J. 1. In this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner-A4 seeks to quash the proceedings against her in C.C. No. 1/2019 (vide Cr. No. 126/2015 of Macherla Town Police Station) on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Macherla, which was taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 353, 506 r/w. 34 IPC. 2. On the complaint lodged by the S.I. of police, Macherla Rural Police Station to the S.H.O. Macherla Town Police Station, Cr. No. 126/2015 was registered for the offences under Sections 353, 506 r/w. 34 IPC. The complaint allegations briefly are that Cr. No. 134/2014 of Macherla Rural Police Station was registered against eight accused for the offences under Sections 302, 120(B) r/w. 34 IPC. A3 to A8 were arrested and remanded to judicial custody. A1 & A2 obtained anticipatory bail. The State filed petition before the High Court of A.P. for cancellation of bail and in that context notice was ordered against A1 Maddigapu China Venkatrami Reddy and A2 Thammisetti Lakshmi. Notice was served on A2. Thereafter the complainant and his staff proceeded to the apartment of A1 on the night of 24.03.2015 to serve notice on A1. When they rang the bell, A1's younger brother Maddipagu Srinivasa Reddy @ Bul Reddy (A1 in the present crime) opened the door and informed that his elder brother Maddigapu China Venkatrami Reddy resides in the flat in upper stair. Himself and his wife went along with the police to upstairs to show the flat of Maddigapu China Venkatrami Reddy. When the police rang the calling bell, petitioner-A4 who is the daughter of China Venkatrami Reddy and the minor son of Srinivasa Reddy opened the door. On that the complainant informed that they came to serve the notice issued by the High Court to her father. On that, Srinivasa Reddy abused them stating that how dare they came to serve the notice to their brother, who is a councillor. Then all the accused went upon the police. Therefore, the complainant and the staff had to return. While they were coming back Maddigapu China Venkatrami Reddy telephoned to the complainant and abused him and threatened him with dire consequences. After investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the accused. Hence, the instant petition by the petitioner-A4. 3. Then all the accused went upon the police. Therefore, the complainant and the staff had to return. While they were coming back Maddigapu China Venkatrami Reddy telephoned to the complainant and abused him and threatened him with dire consequences. After investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the accused. Hence, the instant petition by the petitioner-A4. 3. Heard Sri K.M. Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner, and learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the first respondent-State. 4. Denying the complaint allegations, learned counsel for petitioner would submit that since the police went to their apartment in the midnight, A1 only questioned about the propriety of the complainant and staff in visiting their house in the midnight though there was no urgency and on that the complainant highhandedly behaved on them and foisted a false case. Learned counsel would further argue that even assuming that the entire prosecution case is true, except being present at the scene, petitioner-A4 has not committed any offence and therefore, continuation of criminal case against her would amount to abuse of process of the Court. 5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and argued that since the time was short, the police had to go to the apartment of accused to serve notice on A1 in Cr. No. 131/2014. However, all the accused abused the complainant and his staff and assaulted them questioning them as to how dare they were to visit their house in the midnight. 6. I perused the FIR and statements of L.Ws. 1 to 7. The complaint and the statements of witnesses would pellucidly show that it was A1 alone abused the complainant and his staff as well as the High Court. In the complaint it is not mentioned that other accused made any such abuse. However, it was mentioned as if all the accused have obstructed the police from discharging their duties. In the complaint or charge sheet it is not clearly mentioned as to what prompted the complainant and his staff to go to the residence of the accused in the midnight for serving notice. Be that as it may, as rightly argued by the learned counsel for petitioner except the presence of petitioner-A4, nothing more is mentioned about her participation in the crime. Her presence at the scene cannot be found fault as it happens to be their flat. Be that as it may, as rightly argued by the learned counsel for petitioner except the presence of petitioner-A4, nothing more is mentioned about her participation in the crime. Her presence at the scene cannot be found fault as it happens to be their flat. Therefore, in my view continuation of criminal proceedings against petitioner-A4 would tantamount to abuse of process of the Court (vide State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604 ). 7. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C. No. 1/2019 (vide Cr. No. 126/2015 of Macherla Town Police Station) on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Macherla, Guntur District, are quashed against Maddigapu Hima Bindu (A4). As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending if any, shall stand closed.