MOHAMMAD AZAM Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the accused in CC.No.76 of 2017 on the file of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Amalapuram, East Godavari District. The 2nd respondent is the defacto complainant. The 1st respondent is the State represented by learned Public Prosecutor in the quash petition. Said CC is outcome of crime No.33 of 2015 of the defacto complainant dated 06.02.2015 to the SHO, Amalapuram, from which the crime originally registered for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 354A, 354D and 506 IPC and the police after investigation filed the charge sheet of the above offences including added Section 195-A IPC vide charge sheet dated 21.12.2016. There are 13 witnesses cited in the police final report including the defacto complainant so called victim-LW.1, her grand father and father-LWs.2 and 3, Assistant Public Prosecutor of the Magistrate Court concerned as LW.4 and the so called other witnesses-LWs.5 to 8 including the circumstantial witnesses and LW.9-Head constable is also one of the so called witness and LW.10 is the constable, LW.11 is the learned Magistrate who recorded Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement of LW.1, LW.12 is the SI of police who registered the crime and LW.13 is the Inspector who investigated and filed the final report.

(2.) Before coming to the contentions in the quash petition in seeking to quash the said CC by impugning the cognizance order right from the registration of the crime by pleading innocence of the petitioner/accused advocate by avocation is no other than advocate to defend the husband and other family members of the husband of the defacto complainant herein in CC.No.482 of 2008 renumbered as CC.No.1 of 2014 outcome of crime No.80 of 2008 of the selfsame defacto complainant of Ainavalli PS for the Sections 498-A, 386, 312, 341, 448 and 506 r/w 34 IPC under trial.

(3.) Now coming to the contentions in the quash petition in pleading innocence of the petitioner/accused that the police report and the investigation from the statements of the witnesses is nothing but abuse of process and it is a false report and actuated with malice and ill-will in setting the law in motion with untrue averments and also the investigation not fairly and properly conducted in filing of charge sheet having taken time of nearly 2 years from registration of crime. It is unknown had there been any little truth why she did not immediately bring to the notice of the Court of the alleged happenings in the Court and what waited to report for 50 days thereafter and the explanation is also an after thought. By the time anticipatory bail obtained by the petitioner in Crl.M.P.No.172 of 2015 dated 12.02.2015 from the order granting anticipatory bail referring to the police investigation there are only 3 witnesses examined from registration of the crime dated 06.02.2015 and all other witnesses only in taking about one year 10 months therefrom to file final report by citing LWs.4 to 13 also in all including IOs and the charge sheet shows as if LWs.1 to 10 are examined on 07.02.2015 which doubts the credibility of the investigation of the statements with anti-date created. Her allegations are untrue and unfounded including from her transfer petitions filed in 2014 in District Court, Rajahmundry of CC.No.482 of 2008. No eye witness of the Court staff or Court Officer examined if at all there is any truth of such alleged happening but for planting some witnesses conveniently. It is only a pressure tactics to dictate the petitioner/accused to cause settle the scores between the defacto complainant and her husband in said CC.No.1 of 2014 and other matrimonial disputes and the prosecution otherwise no way sustainable and thereby liable to be quashed.