Order:

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed against the order, dated 21.12.2020, passed in Crl.MP No.1340 of 2020 in CC No.150 of 2018 by the learned IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati.

2. A charge sheet has been filed against the petitioners herein and others for the offences punishable under Sections 332 and 353 read with 34 IPC.

3. Brief facts of the case are that, on 15.02.2018, at about 01.00 PM, the de facto complainant and LW.2-K.Sreenu, who were working as Police Constables in SVU Campus Police Station, Tirupati, were deputed to perform AGRI UNIFEST-2018 bandobust duty at S.V. Veterinary University, Tirupati. While they were performing the duty, at about 08.00 PM, LW.5-P.Bala Subramanyam, Security Guard of SV Veterinary University, Tirupati, informed them about the quarrelling by some unknown persons opposite to Open Auditorium, SV University, Tirupati. Then the de facto complainant and LW.2-K.Sreenu went to the above place and found five persons quarrelling in drunken state. When the de facto complainant intervened and questioned them as to

2 2 0 2 3 : A P H C : 3 4 18 why they were causing disturbance to the general public/students, A1 beat the de facto complainant with his hand on his head and the remaining accused Nos.2 to 5 obstructed the de facto complainant and LW.2-K.Sreenu from discharging their legitimate duties. In respect of that, a case in Crime No.34 of 2018 of SVU Campus Police Station, Tirupati, was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 332, 353 read with 34 IPC, and after conducting investigation, police filed charge sheet which was numbered as CC No.150 of 2018 on the file of the learned IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati.

4. While so, the petitioners herein/A2 and A5 filed Crl.MP No1340 of 2020 in CC No.150 of 2018, under Section 239 Cr.P.C., praying to discharge them from the aforesaid offences. The learned Magistrate, by an order dated 21.12.2020, dismissed the said petition on the ground that prima facie case has been made out as against the petitioners herein and they were not entitled for discharge.

5. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the petitioners/A2 and A5.

nd

6. In spite of service of notice on 2 respondent, none appeared nd for 2 respondent nor is there any representation made on his behalf.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that even accepting the entire accusations in the charge sheeet and the

3 2 0 2 3 : A P H C : 3 4 18 statements of witnesses to be true, the offences under Sections 332 and 353 IPC would not attract as against the petitioners herein for the reason that specific overt-acts are attributed against accused No.1 only alleging that he beat the de facto complainant with his hand. Insofar as the petitioners are concerned, they were only present at the scene of offence and except the said averment, there is no other accusation made as against the petitioners herein.

8. On the contrary, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that, on coming to know that a quarrel was going on, at the SV University Campus, the de facto complainant went there and when he intervened and questioned the accused as to why they were causing disturbance to the general public/students, A1 alleged to have beat the de facto complainant with his hand. He further contended that there are accusations against the petitioners that they were present at the scene of offence and these are all disputed questions of fact which have to be decided during the course of trial.

9. Heard. Perused the entire material on record.

10. Going by the material on record, except stating that the petitioners were present at the scene of offence and tried to obstruct the de facto complainant from discharging his official duties, there is no other accusation against the petitioners herein. The main accusation is against accused No.1, who is alleged to have beat the de

4 2 0 2 3 : A P H C : 3 4 18 facto compla