IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No. 10536 OF 2010 BETWEEN: K.Venkateshwarlu …PETITIONER AND The State of A.P. represented by its Public Prosecutor and another. …RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No. 10536 OF 2010 O R D E R: Heard the petitioner’s counsel Sri Rajanikanth Jwala. The petitioner is the accused in S.C.No.337 of 2010 on the file of Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, City Criminal Courts at Nampally, Hyderabad. He filed this petition to quash the said case against him. 2. The offence alleged is one punishable under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code i.e., outraging the modesty of a woman. The learned counsel for the petitioner raised several contentions relating to the delay in giving of the First Information Report and also another case which he himself filed against the 2nd respondent herein and also another lady for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. He also filed a copy of the judgment dated 23.11.2010 passed in Special Sessions Case No.5 of 2010 on the file of Special Judge for trial of offences under Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act –cum-VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad which pertains to the earlier complaint given by him. 3. It may be noted that a perusal of the charge sheet in the present case shows that on the date of the incident the petitioner herein assaulted the de facto complainant/prosecutrix and the case is based upon not only her statement but also the statements of three circumstantial witnesses. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the present case is filed only as a counter blast the above Sessions Case 5 of 2010. He also alleged that there is delay of more than 17 or 18 days in giving the report and he then pointed out that even the whreabouts of the de facto complainant are not known now. He raised all the above contentions for quashing the present criminal case. 4. It may be noted that all the above contentions raised by the petitioner’s counsel fall within the realm of disputed questions of fact and they have to be decided only on the evidence in the trial. The contention of the petitioner’s counsel that the present case is a foisted one or counter blast to the earlier case filed by him may be correct or may not be correct and these questions have to be decided only on evidence. Another circumstance pointed out by the petitioner’s counsel was that there are no eye witnesses to the case and this is also not a ground for quashing it. It may be noted that under the provisions of the Evidence Act testimony of a single witness is sufficient to prove a fact. Hence, the fact that there are no eye witnesses to the incident cannot be a ground to quash the case in these proceedings. 5. It may be noted here that notice of this petition was taken out to the 2nd respondent but it was returned un-served. In the circumstances of this case, I am of the opinion that no notice is necessary to the 2nd respondent. 6. One more circumstance which was relied upon by the petitioner’s counsel is that earlier the de facto complainant filed a false Caste Certificate to claim that she belongs to Scheduled Caste Community and she came up with that claim in the Special Sessions Case or other earlier proceedings. This plea of at best may be a circumstance, which may affect her credibility when she comes and give evidence before the Court in connection with this case. It should be noted that on the report of the de facto complainant the police have investigated the case and filed the charge sheet. 7. In the above circumstances having regard to the fact that the contentions raised by the petitioner’s counsel relate to disputed questions of fact I am of the opinion that this Court cannot interfere in this matter in these proceedings and quash the criminal case filed against the petitioner. 8. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. __________________ N.RAVI SHANKAR, J Date: 19-04-2011. INL