IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRL.P.No.4682 OF 2011 Date:17.06.2011 Between:- Chaganti Pardhasaradhi and another .. Petitioners And The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another. ..Respondents ORDER:- The petitioners herein are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.23 of 2011 of Narsapur Rural Police Station. The offence alleged against them and other accused is the one punishable under Section 307 read with 34 I.P.C. 2. This petition is filed for quashing the First Information Report in the said crime. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has argued on two points. The first point is that the incident is said to have occurred on 02.03.2011 at 2.30 p.m. and the injured have been taken to the hospital on the said date at 7.30 p.m. and later on, the report is said to have been given to the police on 03.03.2011 in the mid night at 00.30 hours. He further says that the above delay in taking the injured to the hospital and giving the report to the police though police station is at about 3 kms away from the place where the incident occurred has not been properly explained either in the F.I.R. or otherwise in the police record and therefore, this is a strong point for quashing the F.I.R. 4. I regret that I am unable to agree with this contention. It may be noted that the allegations in the F.I.R., as such, disclose offence against both the petitioners. The argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, basing on the delay in giving the F.I.R. and the delay in taking the injured to the hospital, relate to probabilities or improbabilities of the case and as such, they fall within the purview of the disputed questions of fact. Hence, the said contention cannot be accepted. 5. The second point raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the injuries of the injured, as seen from the wound certificates, are only simple injuries/injury and the police have unnecessarily included Section 307 I.P.C. only in order to see that petitioners are arrested and remanded to judicial custody and there is no basis for adding Section 307 I.P.C. 6. It may be noted that to attract Section 307 I.P.C., it is not necessary that grievous hurt should be there and it is a matter of investigation and appreciation of the evidence. What should be noted is that the allegations in the F.I.R. do show offence of causing hurt by dangerous weapons and therefore, this is not a fit case for interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioners lastly submitted that petitioner No.1 is Sarpanch of the village and the relief of not arresting him till the completion of investigation may be granted. 8. It may be noted that the F.I.R. would show the infliction of injuries by dangerous weapons. We cannot differentiate between a Sarpanch and an ordinary person in a case like this. Hence, I regret that I am unable to agree with the above contention also. 9. Accordingly, this Criminal petition is dismissed. _____________________ N.RAVI SHANKAR, J 17th June, 2011 AMD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRL.P.No.4682 OF 2011 Date:17.06.2011 AMD