THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL PETITION No.5947 OF 2019

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/A7 to A12 in SC.No.124 of 2019 on the file of VII Addl.District Judge-cum-SC/STs Special Court at L.B.Nagar, Cyberabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 324 r/w.149 of the Indian penal code and Section 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va)

of the SC/STs (PoA) Act.

2. The defacto complainant/2^nd respondent filed complaint before the Chandanagar P.S. on 08.12.2018 at 8.30 p.m. In the said complaint, he narrated that he is the Division President of TDP party, Serilingampally. Around 6.00 P.M. on the same day Accused No.1 (not petitioner herein), who is one of the committee members of TDP party called him to discuss about the money distribution in the polling booths. During the discussion, quarrel ensued between 2^nd respondent and A1, regarding the money meant for polling booths. A1 abused him and refused to give money to 2^nd respondent, and said that he will not pay 2nd respondent any money, and he can do whatever he wanted to. The 2^nd respondent replied that though he was putting in more efforts for the party, however, money was not being paid to him. Accordingly, A1 was angered by the answer given by the defacto complainant and abused him as “Bichapu Lanja Koduka” (beggar Bastard).

3. The followers of A1, who are A2 to A6, beat 2^nd respondent with hands, questioning him as to why he was confronting A1. The followers of A1 named in the complaint and the other followers beat him. For the said reason, 2nd respondent sought the indulgence of Police Inspector to investigate the case and take action against the accused persons.

4. The Investigating Officer then caused enquiries and examined the witnesses including the defacto complainant. The defacto complainant and other witnesses to the incident during their statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., named A1 to A6 and also these petitioners who are A7 to A12. Accordingly, the petitioners were also arrayed as accused in the charge sheet though they were not named in the FIR.

5. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that, the petitioners were not named in the FIR, however, they were included in the charge sheet, without any basis. Admittedly, it was a political meeting and fight ensued in between party workers. If the petitioners had in fact assaulted the defacto complainant, their names would have been mentioned in the complaint. It is apparent that they were falsely implicated at a subsequent date.

6. The learned Senior Counsel Ms.B.Rachana, argued that FIR is not an Encyclopedia to include each and every minute detail. The FIR is to start the investigation. Facts that are known to the Investigating Officer during investigation, will be taken into consideration and, accordingly, the charge sheet would be filed. Not mentioning the names of the petitioners in the complaint is of no consequence, when nearly 10 eye-witnesses deposed the names of these petitioners as the persons who were in the office and part of the group that attacked the defacto complainant.

7. The incident happened in the office of a political party, when the defacto complainant questioned A1 regarding the money that was to be distributed in the polling booths. The altercation was in between A1 and the defacto complainant. It was A1, who according to the complaint abused the defacto complainant in the name of his caste.

8. The details of the arrangements made in between the party workers and discussions regarding the distribution of money, was detailed in the 161 Cr.P.C. statement. The details of the dialogue in between the defacto complainant and A1 was also narrated and that A2 to A6 beat him, after altercation with A1. 2^nd respondent further stated that A7 to A12 took him downstairs and abused him in filthy language and beat him with sticks and hands.

9. The 161 Cr.P.C. statements of witnesses including 2nd respondent were recorded on 09.12.201