THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.P.No.7315 of 2008 & Crlp.No.8767 of 2008 COMMON ORDER Crl.P.No.7315 of 2008 is filed for quashing further proceedings in C.C.No.546 of 2008 on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tadepallygudem, West Godavari District. Crl.P.No.8767 of 2008 is filed for quashing further proceedings in C.C.No.545 of 2008 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tadepallygudem, West Godavari District. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners in Crl.P.No.7315 of 2008. None appears for the other side. The main ground on which these two petitions are filed is that one complaint is given as a counter blast for the other. Learned counsel for the petitioners in Crl.P.No.7315 of 2008 would submit that the incident took place on 29.09.2008 at about 10-00 a.m., in the fields of the petitioners and on the same day, they have given complaint to the police and that the accused, against whom the petitioners lodged the complaint, by way of retaliation also gave a false complaint which was registered on 4-10-2008. As seen from the First Information Reports in both the cases, the complaint given by one Mylavarapu Venkata Subbamma, who is mother of the petitioners 1 and 2 in Crl.PNo.7315 of 2008, was registered as FIR No.51 of 2008 on 4-10-2008 for the offences under Sections 447, 427, 323, 509 and 506 (2) read with 149 IPC and the said complaint bears the signatures of Mylavarapu Venkata Subbamma with the date 4-10-2008 but not 29-09-2008. There is nothing on record to show that the said complaint was given on the same date of occurrence i.e., on 29-09- 2008. The other complaint given by Vaguvala Ratnam, who is the wife of petitioner No.1 in CrlP.No.8767 of 2008, was registered as FIR No.52 of 2008 on 4-10-2008 for the offences under Sections 447, 427, 506(2) read with 34 IPC. Both the First Information Reports were registered on 4-10-2008 but the date of occurrence in both the First Information Reports is not the same. In FIR No. 51 of 2008 registered on the basis of the complaint given by Mylavarapu Venkata Subbamma, the date of occurrence is noted as 29-009-2008 whereas in FIR No.52 of 2008 registered on the complaint given by Vaguvala Ratnam, the date of occurrence is noted as 1-10-2008. After due investigation in both the complaints, the police have filed separate charge sheets against the respective accused. A perusal of the First Information Reports and the charge sheets in both the cases would disclose that they relate to two separate incidents that are said to have taken place on different dates i.e., on 29-092008 and 1-10-2008. Both the First Information Reports and the charge sheets contain specific allegations against the accused prima facie attracting the ingredients of the alleged offences in both the cases. The truth or otherwise of the said allegations is however a matter to be considered on evidence that may be adduced during the course of the trial in both the cases. Prima facie, the material on record does not support the contention of the petitioners in Crl.P.No.7315 of 2008 and that one complaint is retaliatory in nature to the other. As the two cases relate to two separate incidents on different dates and the material on record establishes a prima facie case warranting continuance of other proceedings, it is considered that it is not a fit case to quash further proceedings by invoking the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In the result, both the criminal petitions are dismissed. Interim stay granted earlier shall stand vacated. _____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY,J rkk Dated: 17-1-2011