IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6605 OF 2009 Between: Gopagani Ramakrishna. ..... PETITIONER. AND The State of A.P., through Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad and another ..... RESPONDENTS. Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed therewith, the High Court will be pleased to quash the proceedings in Crime No.70 of 2009 on the file of Athmakur police station, Nalgonda District. The Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. PRAVEEN KUMAR VEERJALA, Advocate for the Petitioner and of the Public Prosecutor, on behalf of the first Respondent, the Court made the following: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6605 OF 2009 ORDER: Heard Sri Praveen Kumar Veerjala, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.Ramesh, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor for the first respondent. No notice is being ordered to the second respondent as the petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission. The crime was registered against the petitioner on the written report of the second respondent on 11-07-2009 about an incident on 10-07-2009 at the kirana shop at Epoor. The allegations are about the committal of offences punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 by the petitioner. The petitioner claims innocence of the offences and to have been implicated falsely due to political rivalries. He also claims that he is resident of Suryapet and could not have been present at the scene of offence at the relevant time. He further relies on other details as improbablising the allegations. He claims that, had the second respondent been beaten, he would have received some injuries and would have been treated for the same, which was absent. For constituting an offence under Section 323 of the I.P.C. for voluntarily causing simple hurt, no external or visible injuries on the person of the victim need be alleged or proved, as seen from the definition of the word 'hurt' under the I.P.C. The presence or absence of the petitioner at the scene of offence and the happening or otherwise of the incident are material facts to be investigated into by the statutory investigating agency and gone into by the trial Court, if a police report on the incident were to be filed before the said Court on conclusion of the investigation. It is the oral and documentary evidence that may be collected during investigation and that may be placed before the Court of competent jurisdiction during trial that will determine the truth or otherwise of either contentions and in a summary proceeding under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this Court cannot go into the probability or otherwise of the presence of the petitioner at the scene or the happening of the incident as alleged. The jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure available in the rarest of rare cases does not appear to be hence available in this case. Sri Praveen Kumar Veerjala, learned counsel for the petitioner further apprehends the possibility of unjustified detention of the petitioner in case of his apprehension but, the investigating agency in case of arrest of the petitioner is bound to produce him before the concerned Court within 24 hours and the Court is expected to consider any request for release on bail with all the expedition and urgency that such request deserves. The Court of competent jurisdiction can be requested to act in accordance with law accordingly. Therefore, while dismissing the Criminal petition, the petitioner, in case of his arrest during further investigation shall be produced before the Court of competent jurisdiction forthwith and in case the petitioner makes any request for release on bail on such production, the Court of competent jurisdiction shall determine the said request in accordance with law on merits on the same day on which such a request is made. ____________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 24-08-2009. Dsh.