HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.409 of 2009 Dated 23-12-2010 Between: R.Narasimha. …Petitioner. And: The State of A.P. represented by S.H.O. Chilkalguda P.S. Secunderabad and another. …Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.409 of 2009 ORDER: Heard Sri P.R.K.Amarendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri L.N.Bhadri Raju, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and the Additional Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent. This Criminal Petition is filed for quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.1058 of 2008 on the file of the Court of X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Secunderabad. The said C.C. has been registered by the Criminal Court for the offence punishable under Sections 448 and 506 I.P.C. and it corresponds to Crime No.68 of 2007 at P.S. Chilkalguda. The petitioner admittedly is the landlord of the premises in question and the 2nd respondent was the tenant in the said premises. It is stated that some litigation went on between the parties regarding the default in payment of rents committed by the 2nd respondent from October, 2006 onwards. It is not necessary to go into those details. A perusal of the Charge Sheet copy filed along with this petition would show that the alleged incident occurred on 31-1-2007 i.e., even before the 2nd respondent vacated the premises. According to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent is said to have vacated the premises in September, 2009. The version of the petitioner is that when he went to the premises to demand the 2nd respondent for payment of rents, the latter filed a false complaint before the police and got this case foisted against him in order to harass him. It may be noted that a perusal of the Charge Sheet shows that apart from the complainant who is the 2nd respondent, the case filed by the police is based on the statement of three eye witnesses. Learned counsel for the petitioner says that the material gathered by the police i.e., in the form of statements of complainant and the three eye witnesses mentioned in the Charge Sheet should be disbelieved by this Court as false one on the ground that the 2nd respondent got the case foisted against him only to harass him for demanding payment of rents and the petitioner’s counsel further says that the proceedings should be quashed on this ground. It is difficult to accept this contention. It may be noted that police have power to investigate a case and file charge sheet and they did so in this case and the charge sheet itself shows that prosecution is based upon the statements of not only complainant but also three eye witnesses who are shown in the charge sheet. Thus, it cannot be said that this is a case where there is no material at all for prosecuting the petitioner. Whether the evidence that is going to be given by the complainant and the witnesses can be relied upon or not is a matter to be decided by the criminal court after trial where the criminal case is pending. In these circumstances, I do not see any reason to entertain this Criminal Petition. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. ____________________________ Justice N.RAVI SHANKAR Dated 23-12-2010. Dvs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.409 of 2009 Dated 23-12-2010