ORDER:

This petition under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short ‘Cr.P.C’) is filed to quash the proceedings in Crime No.186 of 2019 dated 01-08-2019, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 506 read with 34 IPC.

2. The defacto-complainant Smt.Ch.Siva Kumari, Criminal Court Bench Clerk, Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Bhimadolu, West Godavari District submitted a complaint to the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimadolu alleging that on 14-06-2019 while she was discharging her duties and preparing next day cause list, Mr.G.V.Ravi Kumar and the BAR President Sri P.Rajarao came to her desk and G.V.Ravi Kumar asked her that he filed a copy application and its number is C.A.No.282 of 2019 seeking docket order in criminal petition and also petition copy of the said criminal petition, but the staff of copyist section furnished only petition copy and not issued the docket order. The said C.A was returned as there is no date from which date to which, the docket order is required, as such she complied the petition copy in Criminal Petition, but returned the said copy application for docket order, for which the Advocate G.V.Ravi Kumar shouted loudly saying that “is it proper to consider the copy application and asked to fill the numbers and comply”. During that time the Bar President P.Rajarao accompanied him. As the advocates shouted on her loudly they created fear and caused mental agony to her.

nd

3. It is also alleged that the 2 respondent came to know that in the Bar meeting, the advocates referred her name and stated that she has got to be transferred along with other employees as they have got transferred Jayalaxmi and Bhavani Prasad, earlier. The complaint was referred to the District Judge, West Godavari by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimadolu on 14-06-2019 and thereafter it was referred to the police, the police registered the same as a case in Crime No.186 of 2019 of Bhimadolu Police Station for the offences referred above and issued F.I.R.

4. The main contention of the petitioner is that the allegations made in the complaint do not constitute an offence punishable under Section 353 IPC, as there is no criminal force to deter public servant from discharging his/her duties, as the complaint did not disclose assault or use of criminal force to any person to deter from discharging her duties. In the absence of any allegations as to assault or use of criminal force to deter a public servant from discharging his/her duty and in the absence of any allegation to constitute a criminal intimidation as defined under Section 503 IPC, the registration of F.I.R against this petitioner is nothing, but abuse of process of law.

5. It is also contended that when there were disputes between the Bar members and the Judicial Officer and at the behest of Judicial Officer, this complaint was lodged by the principal staff, the second respondent herein to wreck vengeance against the members of the Bar, the petitioners and other members and requested to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

6. During hearing the learned counsel for petitioner would contend that while drawing the attention of this Court to a few facts of the complaint lodged with the police by the third respondent to demonstrate that those allegations do not constitute any offences punishable under Sections 353 and 506 IPC. It is also contended that only due to differences between Bar members and the Judicial Officer, at the instance of the Judicial Officer such complaint was lodged with the police and as such the proceedings against these petitioners being advocates in the same court cannot be proceeded and prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 353 and

506 IPC in Cr.No.186 of 2019 of Bhimadolu.

7. The learned Public Prosecutor would contend that at this stage when the investigation is yet to be commenced, the proceedings cannot be quashed and that too the allegations