MANDAPAKA NARASINGA RAO Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are A.1 and A.2. They seek for the quashment of P.R.C.No.17 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tekkali. The P.R.C was under Section 323 I.P.C and under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act'). Sri A.V. Sesha Sai, learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that on an incident that allegedly occurred on 16.10.2006 the second respondent who is the de facto complainant, lodged a complaint with Tekkali Police Station and that the same was registered as F.I.R in Crime No. 158 of 2006. After due investigation, police filed a final report on 04.12.2006 considering that the allegations were false and that the case deserves to be referred as false. While so, the de facto complainant lodged the present complaint on 03.10.2008, like a protest petition, alleging the same facts on which the earlier complaint was lodged. It may be noticed that the private complaint is not with reference to a separate offence against the same accused, but for the same offence in respect of which Crime No. 158 of 2006 was registered as F.I.R.

(2.) The learned counsel for the accused-petitioners contended that while the complaint was referred as false way back on 04.12.2006, the second respondent chose to file the present complaint on 03.10.2008 with the same allegations with a view to extract money from the accused by way of blackmail. He also referred to various false complaints lodged by the second respondent. He referred to as many as 10 such complaints including the present complaint in Crime No. 158 of 2006 as serial No. 3 in the list of false cases filed by the second respondent.

(3.) I agree with the contention of Sri P.Raj Kumar, learned counsel for the second respondent, that merely because police referred the cases as false, it does not follow that the present private complaint is false and is liable to be quashed. The merits of the present complaint deserve to be examined on its own strength.