THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 7207 OF 2010 Dated 30th March, 2010 Between: Hari Divakaran …Petitioner And The Deputy Inspector of General and Three others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Kambhampati Ramesh Babu Counsel for respondents 1 to 3: AGP for Home The Court made the following ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking quashing of Crime No.27 of 2010 on the file of respondent No.3. I have heard Sri Kambhampati Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused the record. Respondent No.4 gave a report to respondent No.3 on 08.03.2010 with the allegations that on the said date when she was travelling on a two wheeler, two unidentified persons accosted her and threatened her to withdraw the criminal complaint said to have been filed by her against the petitioner and that failing which, they will kill her children by throwing acid on them. On the basis of the said information given by respondent No.4, respondent No.3 registered FIR No.27 of 2010 on the same day for the offences under Sections 341, 506 (2) read with Section 34 IPC. In the present writ petition, the petitioner sought for quashing of the said crime. The plea, based on which such quashing is sought for is that the allegations contained in the report given by respondent No.4 are false and that without proper verification of the said allegations, respondent No.3 has registered the crime. In my considered opinion, the crime registered against the petitioner cannot be quashed at this stage on the abovementioned ground. The law is well settled that the jurisdiction of this Court to quash a criminal proceeding is very narrow and that only in cases where the allegations taken on their face value do not disclose commission of an offence, that this Court exercises its jurisdiction to quash such complaints either under Section 482 Cr.P.C or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (See R.Kalyani vs.Janak C.Mehta[1]; Mahesh Chaudhary vs. State of Rajasthan & another[2] and Devendra & others. vs. State of Utter Pradesh & another[3]). On a reading of the contents of the report given by respondent No.4, it cannot be said that this case falls in the exceptions carved out by the Apex Court for quashing of the complaint. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP No.9290 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 30th March, 2010 vrn [1] (2009) 1 SCC 516 [2] (2009) 4 SCC 439 [3] (2009) 7 SCC 495