Bojjala Venkata Sudher Reddy vs State Of Andhra Pradesh

Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, J

This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.") is filed seeking quash of F.I.R. in Crime No.402 of 2021 of Renigunta Urban Police Station, Tirupati Urban, Chittoor District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 307, 324, 354(B), 323, 355, 336, 506 r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "I.P.C.") and under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short "S.C. and S.T. Act"), against the petitioners, who are A-1 to A-10.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

Learned counsel for the petitioners sought permission to withdraw the criminal petition insofar as A-1 is concerned, who is the 1st petitioner herein, with liberty to file anticipatory bail application. Permission is accorded. This criminal petition is dismissed as withdrawn against the 1st petitioner, granting liberty as prayed for.

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that a counter case was registered against the de facto complainant herein and others on the report lodged by A-1 and as such, it is clear that the present crime was registered against the petitioners on the report lodged by the de facto complainant as a counter blast to the said report lodged by A-1 and it shows the falsity of the 2 allegations made in the F.I.R. and thereby prayed for quash of the F.I.R. registered against the petitioners.

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that even otherwise the allegation of the offence punishable under Section 307 of I.P.C. is only against A-1 as per the contents of the F.I.R. and the allegations against other petitioners, who are A-2 to A10 only pertain to other offences punishable under Sections 147, 324, 354(B), 323, 355, 336, 506 r/w 149 of I.P.C. and under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the S.C. and S.T. Act and they are all punishable with less than seven years period of imprisonment and thereby prayed to order notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C. against the petitioners, who are A-2 to A10, if the Court is of the opinion that they are not entitled for quash of FIR.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed for the same and he would submit that since there is an allegation under Section 34 of I.P.C. also against the other accused of sharing common intention, that they are not entitled to the notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C.

Perused the record.

As can be seen from the material available on record, the present crime against the petitioners on the report lodged by the de facto complainant came to be registered on 19.10.2021 at 5-20 p.m. and a counter case against the de facto complainant was registered on the report lodged by A-1 on the same day i.e. on 19.10.2021 at 8.20 p.m. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that even though A-1 herein also lodged a report at the earlier point of time, that the Station House Officer did not receive the same and as such, A-1 was constrained to approach the Superintendent of Police and thereafter as directed by the Superintendent of Police, that a case was registered on the report lodged by A-1 against the de facto complainant. So, he would submit that the timings mentioned in the F.I.R. cannot be taken into consideration to ascertain as to whose report was first lodged.

Leaving the fact aside as to who lodged the report at the earliest point of time, which is to be decided by the Investigation Officer, admittedly two counter cases were registered on the report lodged by both A-1 herein and the de facto complainant. As per the contents of both the F.I.Rs lodged by them, it appears that the incident has taken place at the same place and at the same time. Therefore, as per the settled law, it is for the Investigation Officer to decide as to who is/are the aggressor(s) relating to the said two counter cases. Having regard to the said legal position and also having regard to the fact that there are specific allegations in the F.I.R. which constitute any offence, which requires investigation to find out the truth or otherwise of the said allegations, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case for quash of the F.I.R. The matter requires investigation to ascertain the truth or otherwise of the allegations and to decide as to who are the aggressors as already discussed supra.

As regards the request made by the learned counsel for the petitioners to order notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C., this Court finds some justification in the said request.

A perusal of the contents of the present F.I.R. show that the allegation of attempting to commit murder is only against A-1. The petition filed on behalf of A-1 has been withdrawn now.

As regards the allegations set out in the F.I.R. relating to the role played by the other petitioners, who are A-2 to A10, are concerned, there is no allegation of any attempt to commit murder, against these petitioners. Further, no specific overt acts were given relating to the offences complained against these petitioners and only an omnibus allegation was made against them without giving any specific details relating to an attack made by each of them and regarding the overt acts also against them.

Therefore, considering the fact that all other offences which are registered against them are punishable with less than seven years period of imprisonment, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners 2 to 10, who are A-2 to A10 in the above crime are entitled for a notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C. Even though learned Additional Public Prosecutor has contended that this case is also registered under Section 34 of I.P.C. alleging that the petitioners have also shared common intention with A-1 and as such, they are not entitled to the notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C., as can be seen from the F.I.R., it was not registered under Section 34 of I.P.C. alleging that the petitioners have shared the common intention with A-1 to commit any such offence under Section 307 of I.P.C.

So, the petitioners are entitled for notice under Section 41A of Cr.P.C.

Therefore, this Criminal Petition is dismissed.

However, as the offences registered against the petitioners herein, who are A-2 to A10, in the above crime, are all punishable with less than seven years period of imprisonment, the Investigation Officer is directed to follow the procedure contemplated under Section 41A Cr.P.C. and the guidelines prescribed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and another ARR (2014) 8 SCC 273 case.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in the Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.