IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD Wednesday, November 23, 2011 Present: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR Crl.P.No. 4769 of 2009 Between: Bhavana Seshagirti Rao ..Petitioner and The State of AP and another …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR Crl.P.No. 4769 of 2009 O r d e r: The point that arises for consideration in this petition, which is ﬁled under section 482 Cr.P.C. is whether there are suﬃcient grounds to quash the criminal case – C.C.No. 319 of 2006 on the ﬁle of the court of XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, which has been instituted against the petitioner. 2. The oﬀence alleged in the above case is one punishable under section 338 IPC i.e., causing grievous hurt by a rash or negligent act. The case has arisen out of a motor vehicle accident involving a two-wheeler also. The petitioner at the relevant time was stated to be the owner of car bearing registration No.DL-7-CC-4271. The version of the petitioner is that on the date and time of the accident, another car bearing registration No. AP-31-S-3555, which was driven by a lady came and hit his car from behind and in that process his car swerved to the right and happened to hit a two-wheeler. It is stated that as a result of the accident the pillion rider of the two-wheeler sustained grievous hurt and his plea is that the above mentioned lady alone is responsible for the accident. 3. The plea of the petitioner is that immediately after the accident, he went and gave a report in the concerned Police Station against the driver of car bearing No. AP-31-S- 3555, but the police failed to investigate into that aspect and ultimately ﬁled the charge sheet against him. It is also the grievance of the petitioner that the police have examined the injured six months after the accident and did not take any steps to ﬁnd out the complicity of the driver of car bearing No. AP-31-S-3555 and instead ﬁled the charge sheet against him. It is true that in the charge sheet nothing is mentioned as to what investigation the police have done with regard to the alleged complicity of the driver of car bearing No.AP-31- S-3555l and how the complaint of the petitioner is false one. This leaves much to be derives on the part of the concerned investigating officer. 4. Sri O. Kailashnath Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner says that in view of the above lapse in the police investigation, the case should be quashed. I am unable to agree with his contention. It may be noted that the allegations in the charge sheet and the statements of the eyewitnesses as ﬁled into the court do disclose an oﬀence punishable under section 338 IPC against the petitioner. The case pleaded on behalf of the petitioner may support his defence in the matter and therefore whether the prosecution case is true or the defence of the petitioner is true becomes a disputed question of fact, which cannot be gone into in this petition and has to be decided by the trial court. In these circumstances I am unable to agree with the petitioner’s counsel and the relief for quashing the case is rejected. 5. It is however open for the petitioner to make an application under section 258 Cr.P.C. for stoppage of the proceedings against him, if he is able to establish his case for that relief or seek any other relief before the trial court to which he is entitled to. 6. This petition is accordingly disposed of in the above terms. _____________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J. November 23, 2011. *BVS