The court upheld the continuation of proceedings against one accused due to specific allegations while quashing the case against another accused due to lack of allegations.

ORDER :

(VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J.)

The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 , [for short ‘ Cr.P.C ’] has been filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2, seeking quashment of proceedings against them in C.C.No.833 of 2021 on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kavali for the offences under Sections 355 , 120B and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, [for short ‘ IPC ’]

2. The contents of the complaint filed Respondent No.2/Complainant, in brief, are as follows:

(i) Respondent No.2 and one Gummalapati Prasad are the practicing Advocates at Kavali. Gummalampati Prasad had reported to the Accused on 24-07-2021 that his grandmother Kamatham Mahalakshamma has a house bearing D.No. 6-8-37, Gayatri Nagar, Kavali and her son by name Kamatham Koteswara Rao, who has been working as ASI in CISF Bangalore Regiment, along with his family had temporarily come down to Kavali due to Corona outbreak at Bangalore, took shelter in the house of his mother Mahalakashamma from September 2020.

(ii) That being so, in view of the property disputes, the son of Mahalakshamma used to pressurize her to execute a document in his favour and beat her indiscriminately and put her to starvation mercilessly and had driven her out of the house.

(iii) While so, on 12.09.2021 at about 05.30 p.m. said Kamatham Koteswara Rao and his men made a forcible entry into the house of the said Prasad and scolded the mother of the said Gummalampati Venkata Prasad, who is the sister of Koteswara Rao, Mahalakshamma and the father of the said Gummalampati Prasad and had created such an unhealthy and annoying atmosphere in their house premises by raising louder voice, and as a consequence of the same Mahalaskhamma was fell ill on the apprehension that her son will kill her on pretext of taking back her home.

(iv) The Complainant and the said Gummalampati Prasad went to the Police Station by 07.00 p.m. on 12.09.2021 and narrated the facts and harassment of said Koteswara Rao to the Police. On that, Accused No.1 made a rude conversation that "how the offence is established for mere entrance of a person in the house of the said Gummalampati Prasad", for which, the Complainant replied that "he trespassed into the house with an evil-intention and that is an offence". At that juncture the Complainant said that "Sir we are Advocates" for which, Accused No.1 replied in an arrogant manner stating that " what if you're an advocate, show your status in your Courts not here" eventhough the Complainant was explaining the case and was trying to convince Accused No.1, having influenced by said Koteswara Rao, who is also a Police Personnel, snapped his fingers by saying “chalo chaloo … chalo”. When the Complainant questioned his acts, Accused No.1 got irritated and gave sudden provocation by using unhealthy language against the Complainant in the presence of G.Prasad and others. Accused No.1 also behaved inhumanly towards the Complainant and said Prasad insulted them and asked them to sort their remedies at their Courts. By saying so, Accused No.1 caught hold the collar of the Complainant and dragged him to some extent with a direction to go out of the Police Station.

(v) When the Complainant tried to convince Accused No.2 and other Staff, who were present there at the time of the alleged incident, Accused No.1 asked them to recourse their remedy at the Courts, by showing his hand towards the door. Accused Nos.1 and 2 degraded the Advocate profession and thereby dishonoured the dignity of the noble profession. Having no other go, the Complainant filed the present compliant before the Court.

3. Heard Sri Ginjupalli Subbarao, learned counsel for the Petitioners, Ms.Marella Radha, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.1/State.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 are the Inspector and Sub-Inspector of Poli