HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.5980 of 2009 DATED:05.08.2009 Between: M.Ramakrishna .. Petitioner And The State of A.P., rep., by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad and another .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.5980 of 2009 ORDER: Heard Sri K.Bhaskara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri K.Dhananjaya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, who entered appearance for the first respondent. No notice is being ordered to the second respondent, as the matter is being disposed of at the stage of admission. What the petitioner, who is the third accused in Cr.No.129 of 2009 of Macharla Town Police Station, Guntur District, claims herein is that in the case registered for the alleged offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, there were no specific allegations made against him. The petitioner claims that he has no relationship or association with the first accused or the de facto complaint and never participated in the alleged offence at any point of time. Due to such circumstances including the absence of any allegations of specific overt acts against him, he desires that the criminal proceedings be quashed against him. The First Information Report in question is based on the statement of the victim/second respondent herein and the second respondent stated that the first accused after the initial altercation came back within 15 minutes along with ten members having iron rods in an auto and then at the behest of the first accused, who asked them to kill him, they made an attack to kill him. He fell down on the spot due to the impact of the injuries and some other workers also received injuries during the incident. The second respondent further stated that the names of the persons, who attacked them were Chinna, “Rama Krishna, resident of Bodilaveedu”, Kota Chinna, Bala Krishna, Nagaraju and friends of Nagaraju, whom he can identify if he sees them. The second respondent further stated the friends of Nagaraju to be three in number and though it is true that there were no specific allegations or specific overt acts against the petitioner in the said description of the persons attacked, those details have to be gathered during investigation into the crime by the statutory investigating agency. When the second respondent had alleged that the petitioner among others was part of the attack against them and when the offence committed according to the First Information Report was said to be disclosing an offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, any premature interference with the investigation will not be in the interests of justice. The claims of the second respondent about the involvement of the petitioner and the counter-claims of the petitioner about his innocence have to be gone into by the statutory investigating agency in exercise of its jurisdiction under the Code of Criminal Procedure and disputed questions of fact cannot be the subject matter of a restricted enquiry under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ___________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J 5th August 2009 KH