IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.859 OF 2010 Between: Dr. K.C. Subramanyam @ Siva & another ……Petitioners – Accused Nos.1 & 2 AND The State of A.P., through the Station House Officer, Kuppam Police Station, Chittoor District, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. & another .....Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.859 OF 2010 ORDER: This Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed by the petitioners Dr. K.C. Subramanyam @ Siva and Smt. Sulochana, accused Nos.1 and 2 respectively, seeking to quash the proceedings against them in PRC No.2 of 2010 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kuppam, Chittoor District, arising out of Crime No.65 of 2009 of Kuppam Police Station, Chittoor District, registered for the offences under Sections 313 & 420 read with 34 IPC. 2. Heard. 3. Petitioner No.1 is a R.M.P. Doctor and petitioner No.2 is wife of petitioner No.1. 4. The allegations against the petitioners are of causing abortion to the de facto complainant D. Sudha, respondent No.2 herein, against her will and medical negligence etc. 5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that police people and revenue officials are having grievance against the petitioners, as they gave a complaint against them earlier, used the services of the de facto complainant and got filed the impugned false complaint and even there is delay of more than ten (10) days in giving the complaint and it shows that it is a false case. 6. At the crime stage, petitioner filed the quash petition in Criminal Petition No.5969 of 2009 and it was disposed of with a direction not to arrest the petitioners till filing of charge sheet, if any, and to investigate into the matter and take further steps. Thus, impliedly it was held that there is prima facie case against the petitioners. 7. Now the main contention of the petitioners is that police people and revenue officials having grievance against the petitioners, engineered the impugned false complaint against the petitioners by using the services of the de facto complainant. 8. The issues raised in this petition are questions of fact and they can be decided only during trial. Further, it is not a case where there is no prima facie case, as such, the impugned proceedings cannot be quashed. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 9. Therefore, the Criminal Petition is dismissed at the admission stage itself. ____________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J February 4, 2010. PV