I VENKATESWARLU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who is an accused in CC No. 130/2010 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhainsa, filed the present Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking quashing of proceedings in the said CC, which was taken on file against him for an offence punishable under Section 500 IPC. The allegations in the complaint are as follows: The second respondent was Ex-Municipal Chairman of Bhainsa Municipality for two consecutive terms i.e. from 1995 to 2000 and 2000 to 2005. Subsequently, the post of Municipal Chairman of Bhainsa Muncipality was reserved to the BC (General). The complainant who was previously the Chairman for two terms contested for ward No. 10 of Bhainsa Municipality in 2005 elections as the post of the Chairman was reserved for BC (General). The petitioner who was working as Inspector of Police, Bhainsa earlier worked in Adilabad and has knowledge about the elections to Bhainsa Municipality, more particularly about the office of the Municipal Chairman of Bhainsa Municipality. It is alleged that the accused was also aware about the position held by the second respondent in AIMIM party. It is alleged that the accused was not fair while investigating matters relating to cases where Muslims are involved. One of the reasons for developing grudge against the second respondent is that he objected against registration of Cr. No. 129/2009 against the persons belonging to Muslim community. It was a case where looting and damage to property took place at a Nursing Home in Bhainsa, wherein 33 persons mostly belonging to a particular community were shown as accused. In the month of January, 2010, the second respondent lodged a report against one Dr. Dasha Goud, DHMS, who was running nursing homes, namely, Sri Tirumala Nursing Home and Sri Satya Sai Emergency Hospital at Bhainsa. It is alleged in the said report that Dr. Dasha Goud used to perform ultra sound, scanning and surgeries i.e., appendicitis, abortions, sex determination test, hydrosol and also giving anesthesia without any authority or licence. He was also alleged to have indulged in sex determination tests and termination of pregnancy without obtaining any registration under Andhra Pradesh Private Medical Care Establishment Act, 2002. Basing on these allegations, a case in Cr. No. 7/2010 came to be registered at Bhainsa Town Police Station for an offence punishable under Section 420 IPC and section 15(3) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. The police investigated into the said matter and referred the case as false. In the final report filed by the police it was stated that the second respondent is trying to capture the post of Municipal Chairman in the forthcoming elections and for that purpose only he is utilizing his community by attacking Doctors in all possible routes and trying to bring down them to his route, which according to the respondent is said to be defamatory in nature. Basing on these allegations, a private complaint was filed which was taken cognizance.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly submits that even accepting the allegations in the charge sheet to be true, no offence is made out. According to him, the averments made in the final report are based on the statements recorded during the course of investigation and since the act of the petitioner was in discharge of his official duty, no prosecution can be initiated except with the previous sanction of the State Government. He would further contend that the petitioner is protected under exception (3) of section 197 Cr.P.C., and as such continuation of proceedings against him is an abuse of process of law.

(3.) On the other hand, the learned counsel for the second respondent relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court contended that the act of the petitioner cannot be said to be in discharge of his official duty and it is no part of his duty to make allegations against the second respondent when he is very well aware that the second respondent is not eligible for the post of Municipal Chairman. According to him, the plea of good faith said to have been taken is a question of fact, which has to be decided during the course of trial.