IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3221 OF 2011 BETWEEN 1. B. Ratan Chand S/o late Sri B. Ramachandrarao … Petitioner AND 1. The State of A.P through Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad. 2. Mr. B. Giri Kumar, S/o late Sri B.V. Acharya … Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3221 OF 2011 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short ‘Cr.P.C’) and the petitioner who is the accused in C.C.No.648 of 2010 on the file of the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, is seeking the relief of quashing the said case against him. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are those punishable under Sections 447 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘I.P.C.’). The substance of the accusation made against the petitioner is that earlier he worked in the hospital of the defacto complainant and that subsequently he left that job and started quarrelling with the defacto complainant in connection with the payment of certain amounts allegedly due to him. 3. It is stated in the charge sheet that on 27.10.2009, at 4.00 P.M, the petitioner trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant and abused him and his wife and committed other acts attracting Sections 447 and 506 of I.P.C. 4. The allegations in the charge sheet thus disclose offences against the petitioners and thus, this cannot be said to be a case where the allegations even if believed do not disclose any offence. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that in the complaint the defacto complainant also made allegations that the petitioner has abused the complainant and his wife through telephone calls and that the said allegation was found to be false and police have deleted that offence and therefore the present offence should also be disbelieved. 5. It may be noted that the above contention relates to the defence of the petitioner and the truthfulness or otherwise of the same has to be decided only upon evidence or any enquiry preceding trial. 6. In the circumstances, I regret that I am unable to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner for quashing the case. 7. Accordingly, this criminal petition is dismissed. ______________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J April 13, 2011 SP THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3221 OF 2011 April 13, 2011 SP