HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRL.PETITION NO. 3547 OF 2010 Date: 28.04.2010 Between: Orugala Pedda Yellaiah and others …..Petitioners And: The State of AP., rep. by its PP And another. …..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRL.PETITION NO.3547 OF 2010 ORDER: This petition is filed by the accused Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 for quashing proceedings in C.C. No.244 of 2009 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Peddapalli, Karimnagar District relating to offences punishable under Sections 447, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. 2) It is alleged that on 10.07.2009 at 7.00 A.M all the accused 1 to 5 trespassed into house of the 2nd respondent/defacto-complainant and dragged him from the house by abusing him in filthy language and beat him with hands and kicked him with legs indiscriminately all over his body on road and that the 2nd respondent sustained internal injuries on abdomen and chest and that when the wife of the complainant tried to interfere, the accused threatened her with dire consequences. 3) It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that only bald allegations were made against the accused without specific allegations. It cannot be said that allegations in the complaint are bald. Simply because each of the accused are not separately named and seat of injuries inflicted by each of the accused separately is not stated, it cannot be said that it is a bald allegation. When there was indiscriminate beating by five persons, it cannot be possible for the injured to refer each of the accused with reference to seat of injuries inflicted by each of the accused. The allegations are not bald, but they are cumulative. 4) It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that there is improvement in sworn statement of the complainant given before the Magistrate to the affect that the accused beat the 2nd respondent’s wife also. It may be relevant during appreciation of evidence by the trial Court. This Court in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C cannot be called upon to appreciate evidence on record. 5) It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that A-3 was not present in India on the date of offence and that he was also falsely implicated in this false case. A-3 is not a party in this petition. Plea of alibi is a question of fact. This Court in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C cannot go into and decide the said question of fact. Truth or falsity of the case will be decided by the trial Court after trial and after recording evidence to be let in by both the parties. I do not find any merits in the petition. 6) Hence, the petition is dismissed. ______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU,J. Date: 28.04.2010. KSH