IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.7757 of 2009 Between: Tummati Ramesh Kumar, S/o Ezra, .. Petitioner AND State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by Public Prosecutor and another .. Respondents Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to quash the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.613 of 2008 on the file of XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad. The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri G. Bhaskar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and of Sri A. Ramesh, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor for the first respondent, the Court made the following: ORDER: Heard Sri G. Bhaskar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A. Ramesh, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor for the first respondent. No notice is being ordered to the second respondent as the matter is being disposed of at the stage of admission. The petitioner is being prosecuted for alleged offences punishable under Sections 384, 506, 507 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of the charge sheet filed by the statutory investigating agency after investigation into Crime No.137 of 2008 of Begumpet Police Station. The petitioner seeks quashing of the said proceedings not only on the ground of his innocence but also on the ground that in the departmental enquiry conducted against him, the second respondent clearly admitted that the name of the petitioner was utilized by some miscreants and that the petitioner was not at fault. The petitioner consequently denies the allegations of the prosecution and seeks quashing of the further proceedings. The investigating officer has not only cited the second respondent as witness but also two mediators of Panchanama under which the petitioner was stated to have confessed his guilt leading to seizure of one L.G. mobile phone from his possession. The charge sheet discloses that the investigating officer has found from the evidence collected during investigation that there was justification for prosecuting the petitioner. Whether the second respondent made the alleged admissions attributed to her during the departmental proceedings against the petitioner or not and whether the denials of the petitioner are true or not are matters of fact, which cannot be conclusively determined in this summary enquiry under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As the issues raised in this Criminal Petition are purely related to the questions of fact, the same is not sustainable under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, Sri G. Bhaskar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is a police constable and he is prejudiced his service and employment due to the pendency of criminal case. The trial Court can be requested to expeditiously try and dispose of the case to avoid any such prejudice. Therefore, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. The XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, is directed to try and determine C.C.No.613 of 2008 on his file on merits in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible at any rate within four (4) months from the date of communication of this order. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 23-09-2009 Ksn