In order to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the court must be satisfied that there is no prima facie case against the accused or that the allegations made against the accused are so absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person could reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

JUDGMENT

1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "the Cr.P.C.") to quash the proceedings in Crime No.50 of 2013 of B.N.Kandriga Police Station, Chittoor District, for the offences punishable under Ss. 147, 148, 435, 109 and 353 read with Sec. 149 of The Indian Penal Code (for short "the I.P.C.") and Sec. 3(1) of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and Sec. 135(1) of The Representation of the People Act, 1951.

2. On a report lodged by respondent No.2, who was deputed as Polling Officer Stage-2 to conduct Sarpanch elections at Alathur village, the case in Crime No.50 of 2013 of B.N.Kandriga Police Station, Chittoor District was registered. It is alleged in the report lodged by the defacto complainant that on 23/7/2013 after completing the counting process, winning candidate was declared, and the declaration copy was affixed at the entrance of the school building, some unknown mob around 300 members both male and female formed themselves into unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons like stones, sticks and attacked the Polling station, damaged the doors of MPUP School, obstructed the polling staff and bundobust staff while discharging their legitimate duties and took out the ballot boxes, broken them and damaged the ballot papers and other materials. Basing on the report given by respondent No.2, the above crime was registered by the police and investigation had been taken up. At this stage, the petitioner/A.2 filed this Criminal Petition seeking to quash the proceedings in Cr.No.50 of 2013 of B.N.Kandriga Police Station, Chittoor District.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondentState.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the name of the petitioner does not find in the First Information Report and that the case is purely politically motivated further. He would submit that, the petitioner is a practising Advocate at Srikalahasti and previously worked as a Government Pleader and that the petitioner is not the voter of Alathur Village, B.N.Kandriga Mandal, and he is in noway connected with the crime and the above allegations made against him are false. The petitioner being an Advocate, was the counsel, who filed Election Petition before the Election Tribunal, Srikalahasti on behalf the defeated candidate, in the month of August, 2013 and therefore, the rival political party bore grudge against the petitioner and influenced the Police in implicating the petitioner in the above crime. Further, he would submit that, neither the name of the petitioner is mentioned nor specific allegations were made against him, in the complaint given by respondent No.2 and that the offences mentioned in the FIR or the contents of the FIR do not attract the petitioner. The case is falsely foisted against the petitioner so as to implicate in the false case and therefore, the same is liable to be quashed against the petitioner.

5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State while opposing the criminal petition submitted that, though the name of the petitioner/Accused No.2 is not mentioned in the FIR, during the course of investigation when the statements of witnesses were recorded under Sec. 161 Cr.P.C., L.W.8- Y.Chenchu Rama Naidu discloses that the defeated candidate went outside from the polling room and A-1, A-2 and others formed into unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons had broken the ballot boxes and took out the ballet boxes, destroyed the polling material, damaged the Government property, and left the place. Therefore, prima facie case is made out against the petitioner/A2. Further, he submitted that, when there is sufficient evidence on record, in proof of complicity of the petitioner in commission of the offence, the matter requires appreciation of evidence during the course of trial and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to quash the above