THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.8878 of 2009 Dated 09th June, 2011 Between: Kadiyala Ramesh Babu and others …Petitioners And The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by the Director of General & Inspector General of Police, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri Posani Venkateswarlu Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4: AGP for Home The Court made the following: ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in registering F.I.R.No.117 of 2009 on the file of Narasaraopet Rural Police Station, Guntur District as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners are residents of Yelamanda Village, Narasaraopet Rural Mandal, Guntur District. They are accused in the above-mentioned crime registered for the offences punishable under Section 324 r/w 34 IPC and Section 3(1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The said case was registered on the report given by respondent No.5 on 23.04.2009. The allegations against the petitioners as found in the FIR are that on 23.04.2009 at about 8.30 pm when respondent No.5 went to the temple centre in the Village to take medicines from RMP Doctor, the petitioners came in the opposite direction and questioned him for voting in favour of the candidate sponsored by the congress party, that the petitioners have allegedly thrown out the bicycle of respondent No.5 and beat him with hands causing invisible injuries on his back. It is further alleged that the petitioners scolded respondent No.5 by using his caste for not voting in favour of their party and that the elder brother of respondent No.5, who tried to question the action of the petitioners, was also beaten with iron rod on his ankle. The petitioners pleaded that they are innocent of the offences alleged against them and that they are falsely implicated in the crime. In my opinion, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed mainly on the ground that the very writ petition itself seeking quashing of FIR is not maintainable in view of the judgments of this Court in Gudavalli Murali Krishna v. Gudavalli Madhavi[1], and Reckitt and Benckiser (India) Ltd., New Delhi v. State of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by Drugs Inspector, Hyderabad[2]. The law is well settled that the Courts ordinarily would not interfere with the investigation by police into an offence except in rarest of rare cases, where one or more of the following three grounds exist: (i) to give effect to an order under the Cr.P.C., 1973, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of Court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice, as envisaged under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., 1973. In State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others[3], the Supreme Court laid down broad guidelines for exercise of the inherent powers of the High Courts to quash FIR or criminal proceedings, which are as under: “1. Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. 2. Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. 3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. 4. Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. 5. Where the allegations made in the Fir or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can even reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. 7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” In my opinion, the question whether the petitioners have committed the offences as alleged against them needs to be investigated into and adjudicated after full-fledged trial by the competent criminal Court. This Court exercising jurisdiction either under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India or Section 482 of Cr.P.C., 1973 would not embark upon the adjudication of the correctness or otherwise of the allegations contained in the FIR or the charge sheet. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that they are innocent and are falsely implicated cannot be countenanced in the present proceedings. For the above-mentioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, the interim order, dated 28.04.2009, shall stand vacated and W.P.M.P.No.11630 of 2009 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 09th June, 2011 VGB [1] 2001 (1) ALD (Crl.) 689 [2] 2009 (2) ALT 562 [3] 1992 Suppl (1) SCC 335