HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR Crl.P. No. 8052 of 2009 DATED: 16.12.2011 Between: N. Ranganayakulu .. Petitioner/ A3 And The State of A.P. rep. by S.I. of police .. Respondent O R D E R:- 1. Heard Sri I. Lakshmikanth Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 2. The petitioner is A3 in C.C. No. 230 of 2007 on the file of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad. He filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings against him in the said case. 3. It is seen that initially the complaint was given for three offences i.e. under Sections 323, 506 and 379 read with 34 IPC. Of those offences only one under Section 379 IPC is cognizable while the remaining two are non-cognizable. The police officer concerned, after investigating the matter laid charge sheet only for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 506 read with 34 IPC. 4. So far as the merits of the matter are concerned, the petitioner’s counsel contended that the name of the petitioner is not found in the F.I.R. and therefore proceedings against him should be quashed. The F.I.R. no doubt shows that the petitioner’s name is not mentioned in it. The charge sheet allegations however show that the subsequent investigation into the incident disclosed complicity of the petitioner also. The allegations in the charge sheet do disclose the offence alleged against all the accused. Accordingly, on merits there is no ground for interfering with the matter as the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations made against the petitioner have to be decided on evidence. 5. Another point urged is that since the investigating officer concerned has laid charge sheet only for the offences punishable under Section 323 and 506 read with 34 IPC which are non- cognizable offences he should have obtained prior permission from the Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155 Cr.P.C. to lay charge sheet. This contention has not been specifically raised in the petition. 6. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor relied upon Section 155(4) Cr.P.C. and contended that since in the complaint, the offence under Section 379 IPC has also been alleged, the whole case has to be treated as cognizable case and consequently the police could go ahead with the investigation and file charge sheet only for the offences established even if they are non- cognizable without the permission of the Magistrate. This apart, it may be noted that the petitioner’s counsel did not elaborately argue on this aspect. I, therefore, do not propose to express any opinion on this aspect. It shall be open for the petitioner to raise this objection before the learned Magistrate and invite a decision on it as a preliminary point either in an application for discharge if that is permissible or otherwise and therefore he can workout his remedies in the Court below. 7. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. __________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J 16.12.2011 bcj