CRLP/6498/2009 of M. Umamaheswar Reddy (A-2) Vs I. Ramachandram, on 30 December 2011

ORDER:

1 This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking toquash proceedings in C.C.No.1742 of 2005 on the file of the Court of XMetropolitan Magistrate, Malkajgiri, Hyderabad, registered for offencespunishable under Sections 448, 427 and 188 of IPC in so far as thepetitioner who is the second accused in the criminal case is concerned.

2 The first respondent is the de facto complainant in the case. For thesake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they arearrayed before the trial court.

3 As per the prosecution A.1 in the case involved in trespassing intothe property of the de facto complainant and destroying the existing walltherein by engaging four mastries and ten coolies and the de factocomplainant, on information, went there and saw the incident and in spiteof protest they did not stall the work, which attracts the said provisions oflaw.

4 It is the contention of learned counsel for the second accused thatthe de facto complainant has been cited as L.W.1 to speak about theincident and two more witnesses have been cited as pancha witnesseswho got no personal knowledge about the alleged incident and theconcerned investigating officer is cited as another witness to speak aboutthe investigation of the case and therefore only the correspondingstatement of the de facto complainant has to be taken into considerationand there is absolutely no basis about the involvement of A.2 in the saidcrime and if the claim of the prosecution is true, necessary identificationparade should have been conducted for the identification of A.2 as one ofthe culprits in the case but it was not done and hence the proceedingsare liable to be quashed.

5 The point for consideration is whether there are sufficient groundsto quash the proceedings against A.2 in the case?

6 In the First Information Report the name of A.2 is not mentioned asone of the culprits in the case. Further, in the 161 Cr.P.C. statement ofthe de facto complainant, a copy of which is filed before this Court also,there is no reference of his name as one of the culprits in the case.Further, admittedly, no test identification parade was conducted for theidentification of A.2 in this context. Therefore, virtually, there is nomaterial to prosecute A.2 in the case. Without any basis, he should not beprosecuted and if it is done, it amounts to abuse of process of law.

7 Ultimately the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings inC.C.No.1742 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the X MetropolitanMagistrate, Malkajgiri, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed, insofar as A.2 inthe case is concerned.

30.12.2011Kvsn

----------------------------------------------

G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J.