HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.2966 OF 2012 Dated 27-6-2014 Between:
B.Rama Krishna and others.
..Petitioners.
And:
The State CID, Hyderabad and CID Regional Crime Investigation Unit (RCIU),Guntur, represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and others.
…Respondents.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.2966 OF 2012 ORDER:
This petition is filed to quash proceedings in C.C.No.54 of 2012 on the file of VI Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur in respect of petitioners who are A.1 to A.6.
Brief facts leading to this petition are as follows:
Second and third respondent lodged a complaint with C.I.D. Police on 17-7-2009 which are registered as F.I.R. in Cr.No.10 of 2009 and 11 of 2009 and after investigation, they filed Charge Sheet which is registered as C.C.No.54 of 2012. The grievance of the petitioners is that in respect of the same incident i.e., incident dated 17-3-2008, second respondent herein gave a complaint to police and the same is registered as Cr.No.53 of 2008 and subsequently, civil suits are also filed in respect of the disputed property and that matter ended in compromise in Lok Adalat whereunder it was agreed that the criminal case in Cr.No.53 of 2008 has to be withdrawn. So also, the other crimes registered on the report of workers in Cr.No.50 of 2008 should also to be withdrawn.
Though notice is served to the respondents 2 and 3, they remained exparte.
Advocate for petitioners submitted that when the said crime was not withdrawn, the petitioners approached this court and filed quash petition in Crl.P.No.1644 of 2008 and this court by an order dated 15-7-2010 quashed F.I.R. Cr.No.53 of 208 and also investigation in respect of that crime. He further submitted that these two crimes on the basis of which charge sheet is filed are in respect of the same incident but grievance of the complainant is against the Sub-Inspector of Police and other police officers who according to her, confined them in the police station and accommodated the accused in Cr.No.53 of 2008 to evict them from the disputed property. He further submitted that though F.I.R. is registered against the Sub-Inspector of Police and other Police Officers, the Investigating Officer filed Charge Sheet figuring the earlier accused also showing them as A.1 to A.6 in respect of the same incident and the same would amount to abuse of process. He further submitted that there cannot be two F.I.Rs. in respect of the same incident against the same persons and so far as Sub-Inspector of Police is concerned, as he was not accused in the earlier F.I.R.No.53 of 2008 figuring his name in Cr.No.10 of 2009 and 11 of 2009 may be legal but figuring other accused i.e., petitioners herein is contrary to the provisions of the Cr.P.C. and therefore, the proceedings in C.C.No.54 of 2012 are to be quashed.
I have perused the material papers filed along with quash petition.
As seen from the record, Pattabhipuram Law and Order Police Station registered Cr.No.53 of 2008 on 17-3-2008 on the complaint of second respondent herein for the offences under Sections 143, 448, 427, 506 and 380 I.P.C. read with 149 I.P.C. Subsequent to registration of this F.I.R., she and her daughters filed O.S.No.187 of 2008 for injunction and the said suit ended in compromise in pursuance of which Lok Adalat award is passed on 31-3-2008. Petitioners 1 and 2 and 4 to 6 are D.2, D.4, D.5, D.6 and D.7 in the above referred Lok Adalat award. As seen from the compromise petition, clause No.10, there was a compromise in respect of crime No.50 of 2008 also.
Class 10 of the compromise petition reads as follows:
“The plaintiffs are also have agreed to withdraw their criminal complaint lodged against some of the defendants in Crime No.53 of 2008 of Pattabhipuram Law and Order P.S. and the 3rd defendant has also agreed that her worker will withdraw his complaint lodged against the plaintiffs in Crime No.50 of 2008 of Pattabhipuram Law and Order Police Station in accordance with law. Both parties hereby agreed not to take any grudge against each other and they should not file any criminal case in future.”
This Court by an order dated 15-7-2010 observed that the second respondent herein on one hand is filing civil suits and entering into the compromise and on the other hand, lodging complaint in spite of compromise before Lok Adalat and observed that remedy of the petitioner to challenge Lok Adalat award is elsewhere and on that ground, by exercising the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashed F.I.R. and investigation in respect of Cr.No.53 of 2008. When the allegations in the complaint which is subject matter of Cr.No.53 of 2008 and the complaints which are subject matter of Cr.Nos.10 of 2009 and 11 of 2009 are compared and read together, it is clear that the self same allegations are made so far as petitioners herein are concerned. There is not even a single word or allegation against the petitioners which is not covered by earlier complaint in Crime No.53 of 2008. A close reading of these three complaints, it is clear that the grievance of the second and third respondent is against A.7 in C.C.No.54 of 2012 but not against these petitioners with whom she entered into a compromise.
As rightly pointed out by advocate for petitioners, complainant in this case is in respect of the same incident in respect of petitioners who are A.1 to A.6. Therefore, when investigation in respect of the same incident is quashed, police cannot proceed further in respect of the same incident so far as petitioners herein are concerned. Considering the facts of the case and the various proceedings between the parties, and the allegations in all these three complaints, I am of the view that there is no fresh material against these petitioners attracting any of the offences referred in the charge sheet and continuation of the proceedings against these petitioners would amount to miscarriage of justice and therefore, those proceedings are to be quashed.
Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed quashing proceedings against petitioners in C.C.No.54 of 2012 on the file of VI Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, Guntur District.
As a sequel to the disposal of this Criminal petition, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dated 27-6-2014.
Dvs.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dvs CRIMINAL PETITION No.2966 OF 2012 Dated 27-6-2014