BOLLA JAYANTH, WARANGAL Vs. NAKKA CHANDU CHANDRASHEKAR, WARANGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the petitioners - A7 to A9 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against them in SC No.678 of 2013 on the file of II Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that on 30.11.2012 at 2.00 AM, the de facto complainant came to Police Station, Subedari and lodged a complaint stating that on 29.11.2012, the murder case of Kodari Anand ended in acquittal against his maternal uncle Bongu Kumar and Bongu Cheralu. After acquittal of the said case, A1, the younger brother of Kodari Anand developed grudge against Bongu Kumar and wanted to kill him. On 29.11.2012 at about 12.30 AM, when some unknown persons were quarrelling near the house of the de facto complainant, where Bongu Kumar was also present, Bongu Kumar came out of the house and went near that place. At that time, three persons came on a motor cycle and two persons came on another motor cycle by holding knives, axes and talwars and attacked Bongu Kumar and killed him. The de facto complainant identified A1 and A2. He went inside the house and informed the incident to his brother Rajasekhar. By the time they returned to the scene, all the five persons fled away on their motor cycles. Basing on the said complaint, the police registered Crime No.444 of 2012 against A1, A2 and three unknown persons and after conducting investigation, filed charge sheet against A1 to A9. The said case was made over to the Court of Sessions by giving S.C. No.678 of 2013 and sent to II Additional District Judge, Warangal. A5 to A9 filed a petition for discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C. The said petition was dismissed on 15.07.2014 vide Crl.M.P. No.37 of 2014 by the II Additional District Judge, Warangal. The petitioners - A7 to A9 filed this petition contending that there was absolutely no material against them to proceed with the case under Section 302 IPC and other sections. The petitioners were students, prosecuting MBA and continuation of proceedings against them was nothing but harassment to them and abuse of process of Court.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.