THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRIMINAL PETITION No.10732 OF 2010 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., against the order, dated 29-04-2010, in C.C.No.171 of 2008 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Asifabad. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent-State. Perused the record. 3. Petitioners-A1 to A6 are accused of the offences under Sections 147, 452, 341, 448, 323, 427, 298 and 506 r/w 149 IPC. On a complaint given by the 2nd respondent, who is the Head Master of St. Mary High School, Bellampally, a minority institution, case was registered in Cr.No.17 of 2008 and after due investigation police filed charge sheet against A1 to A6 and the same was taken cognizance as C.C.No.171 of 2008 by the learned Magistrate. Assailing the same, the present petition is filed. 4. Leaned counsel for the petitioner would contend that in the complaint the names of only A1 and A2 are disclosed and no reference is made with regard to A3 to A6 and therefore continuance of proceedings against A3 to A6 at any rate is not warranted. 5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the other hand would submit that during the course of investigation, it was disclosed that A3 to A6 also participated in the offence and therefore charge sheet is filed against them also making specific allegations and attributing specific overt acts to them. 6. As per the charge sheet, on 12-04-2008 at about 10.00 a.m., A1 and A2 trespassed into the school premises and attacked L.W.1-complainant, who is the Head Master of the school, and L.W.2-a teacher tried to rescue L.W.1-Head Master by taking A1 and A2 aside, but A2 escaped from him and gave fist blows on the shoulder and chest of L.W.2 and A1 kicked L.W.1 on the thigh. It is also alleged that A1 and A2 threatened that they would kill the complainant if he asked for the school fee for A1’s children. L.Ws.2 to 6 are stated to have witnessed the said incident. It is further alleged in the charge sheet that A1 and A2 left the school and returned 20-25 minutes later along with their followers-A3 to A6 and trespassed into the office of the complainant and wrongfully confined him by closing the door, threw the books, papers and other articles around, kicked the chairs and threatened him with dire consequence if he again ask for payment of fee for A1’s children. It is also alleged that they insulted L.W.1 asking him to remove the clothes and the said incident was witnessed by L.W.5. In view of the specific allegations made in the charge sheet, attributing specific overt acts to A3 to A6, also pertaining to the offences alleged against them, the contention of the learned counsel that because their names were not mentioned in the First Information Report, the charge sheet ought not to have been filed against A3 to A6 cannot be considered. It is well established principle of law that First Information Report is intended only to set the criminal law into motion and after due investigation it is open to the investigating officer to lay charge sheet against those persons whose names do not find mention in the First Information Report, when adverse material is gathered against them during the course of investigation pertaining to the alleged offences. It is equally well settled that the extraordinary and discretionary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has to be exercised sparingly and cannot be used for scuttling the prosecution of persons against whom specific overt acts are attributed in the charge sheet. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to rely upon a decision reported in GIRISH SARWATE v. STATE OF A.P. AND ANOTHER[1], wherein a Full Bench of this Court held that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised to quash the First Information Report or even a complaint, if it does not disclose any offence. 8. The principle of law laid down in the above decision cannot be applied to the facts of the present case for the simple reason that in the present case, after due investigation into the complaint, charge sheet has been filed, wherein specific overt acts are attributed to A3 to A6 also pertaining to the alleged offence. It is true, in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence at all, no investigation is warranted into the complaint. It is a case where the complaint discloses specific offences against some accused and after due investigation it was found that not only the accused named in the First Information, i.e., A1 and A2, but also other accused-A3 to A6 are also involved in the commission of the said offence and therefore charge sheet is filed against all the accused-A1 to A6. There are absolutely no valid or justifiable grounds for quashing the prosecution against any of the accused, particularly having regard to the gravity of the offences alleged against them. 9. In the result, Criminal Petition is dismissed. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 29th October, 2010 Tsy [1] 2004 (6) ALD 855 (FB)