DEVA VARA PRASAD Vs. BULLA SRINIVASA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No. 130 of 1998 against the petitioner, who is shown as A-l therein.

(2.) Respondent No. 1 filed a private complaint against the petitioner and others for offences under Sections 147,148,427,448, 392,504,506,324,341 read with Section 149 I.P.C. contending that in spite of his obtaining an order of injunction restraining demolition of a tea stall of his client from a competent Court, petitioner, who was working as Revenue Divisional Officer, in violation of the orders of injunction proceeded to demolish the tea stall of his client and when he tried to intervene and stop the petitioner demolishing the tea stall of his client, petitioner instigated the 3rd respondent, the C.I. of Police, and others, to detain and beat him. After recording the sworn statement of the 1st respondent and his witnesses, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the complaint as C.C.No. 130 of 1998 and issued process to the petitioner and others. Contending that the averments in the complaint and the sworn statements of the complainant and the witnesses recorded by the Magistrate do not make out any offence againsthim,petitioner(A-l)filed this petition to quash the proceedings against him in C.C-No. 130 of 1998.

(3.) 1st respondent alleged as follows in his complaint. "The first accused asked the third accused, (C.I. of Police) who was also present, to arrest the complainant and take him away". In his sworn statement 1st respondent stated that the petitioner took a crowbar from the municipal worker and himself tried to demolish the Tea Corner and when he tried to convince the petitioner that it is not proper on hispart to demolish the tea stall, petitioner directed the Circle Inspector Subba Rao to take him (1st respondent) and "put him in". K. Suresh Babu, one of the witnesses said to be present at the time of the incident, stated that when the Revenue Divisional Officer was trying to demolish the structure and when 1st respondent tried to intervene, the petitioner asked the Circle Inspector to remove the 1st respondent from there. Another witness Mr. Venkoba Rao stated that when the 1st respondent tried to dissuade the petitioner from demolishing the tea stall, petitioner called Circle Inspector (Subba Rao) and asked him to take away the 1st respondent from that place. Another witness Mr. Sarat Babu stated that even by the time he reached the scene, the Tea Stall was being demolished, and found the 1st respondent and the municipal staff quarrelling with each other and that in the meanwhile the Circle Inspector (Subba Rao) came there with some police force and took away the 1st respondent by force in a jeep, by beating him. Another witness Mr. N. Nageswar Rao stated that he found the 1st respondent, Court Attenders and many others including police near the tea stall and that petitioner who came in a jeep accompanied by the Circle Inspector stated that the teastallhas to be removed and when 1st respondent informed that stay was granted by the Court, petitioner stating that he is not concerned with the stay order started demolishing the structure, and when the 1st respondent tried to intervene, police took the 1st respondent away in a jeep. Another witness Mr. M. Murali Krishna stated that when the petitioner started to demolish the tea stall stating that he is not bound by the stay order of the Court, 1st respondent tried to intervene and so petitioner directed the Circle Inspector to take him (1st respondent) away and puthim "inside". Another witness Mr. B. Venugopal Rao stated that when the 1st respondent tried to dissuade the petitioner himself demolishing the tea stall, petitioner called the Circle Inspector and asked him to take away the 1st respondent. Another witness Mr. M. Rama Rao stated that when the petitioner tried to demolish the structure with a crowbar, petitioner tried to dissuade stating that an officer of his stature should not violate the orders of the Court, amounting to contempt of Court, petitioner called the Circle Inspector and directed him to take the 1st respondent away. Another witness Mr. G,T. Venkata Rangacharyulu stated that when the petitioner himself tried to demolish the tea stall, 1st respondent obstructed him stating that he cannot demolish it and thereupon the petitioner directed the Circle Inspector to take him away.