IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.9858 of 2006 Between: Smt.Hajari Begum, W/o.Md.Abdul Quddus R/o.H.No.8-10, Shaheen Nagar, P.O. Chandrayangutta, Hyderabad (and mother of Mobin, Accused No.1 in S.C.No.638/2002 pending before Vth Addl. District & Session Judge, at Warangal). ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Vth Addl.Dist & Session Judge , at Warangal. 2 Station House Officer, Hanamakonda Police Station, Warangal. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.T.MOHAN RAO Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. This Writ Petition is filed for issuance of certiorari to quash S.C.No.638 of 2002 on the file of V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Warangal. The petitioner is the mother of Syed Mobeen/Accused No.1 (for short ‘A1’) in the above-mentioned Sessions Case. A.1 along with A.2 to A.4 were charged for the offence of killing one Shafiullah (for short ‘the deceased’). It is alleged that on the complaint of Mohd.Azizulla, father of the deceased, Crime No.194 of 2002 was registered under Section 365 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) by the Hanamkonda Police. During the course of investigation, the Sub-Inspector of Hanamkonda Police Station examined and recorded the statements of LWs.1 to 6; A.2 confessed that he along with A.1, A.3 and A.4 kidnapped the deceased on 17-06-2002 at about 9.45 p.m., from Pushpanjali Function Palace in an auto and took him to the rear side of Zakriya Function Hall, Hanamkonda, and committed his murder by stabbing him with knife and throwing a boulder on his head and; that the deceased was tied to a stone with the help of wires and; that the body was thrown in a well in order to conceal the evidence. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed and the same was numbered as Sessions Case No.638 of 2002 on the file of V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Warangal. It is alleged in the charge sheet that about 2 ½ months prior to the said incident, the deceased was beaten by LWs.10, 15 and some others at Raipur locality for teasing the sister of LW.1 by taking her photographs; that the deceased approached A.1 and informed him about the assault made on him by LWs.10, 15 and others and requested him to beat LWs.10, 15 and others in order to take revenge; that the deceased promised A.1 to pay Rs.5,000/- for the same; that A.1 and his assistants, accordingly, beat LW.15 and searched for LW.10 but he could not be traced; that later A.1 asked the deceased to pay the agreed amount but the deceased was avoiding payment; that on 17-06-2002, A.1 demanded money from the deceased and threatened him with dire consequences; that the deceased had not paid the amount; that A.1 bore grudge against the deceased and decided to kill him with the assistance of A.2 to A.4; that A.1 sent LW.4 to bring the deceased and accordingly, the latter informed the deceased; that when the deceased refused to see A.1, A.1 to A.4 went to Pushpanjali Function Hall, where the deceased, along with his family members, was attending a function; that at 9-45 p.m., A.1 to A.4 are stated to have kidnapped the deceased which is stated to have been witnessed by LW.5; that the accused took the deceased behind Zakriya Function Hall which is stated to have been witnessed by LW.6 and; that the accused were stated to have stabbed the deceased with a knife and threw the body in the well by tying the same with a stone. At the hearing, Sri T.Mohan Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that A.1 was falsely implicated in the case while leaving out the real culprits. He further submitted that there was no eyewitness to the alleged incident and that the First Information Report was registered four days after the alleged incident has taken place. The parameters for interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution or Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of criminal proceedings are too well settled. If the allegations contained in the F.I.R. taken on their face value do not constitute commission of an offence, the criminal proceeding can be quashed. (See: - The decisions of the Supreme Court in State of Orissa vs. Saroj Kumar Sahoo[1], A.V. Mohan Rao vs. M. Krishna Rao[2], State of Karnataka vs. M. Devendrappa[3] and the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Amway India Enterprises vs. Union of India[4]). The charge sheet contains specific accusations of motive and commission of heinous crime by A1. Whether the said allegations are correct or not cannot be adjudicated at this stage. It is only after the full-fledged trial that the criminal Court will decide the issue whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of A1 beyond reasonable doubt or not. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the Sessions Case and quash the same at this stage. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.12468 of 2006 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ___________________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 10th July, 2009 lur [1] (2005) 13 SCC 540 [2] (2002)6 SCC 174; [3] (2002)3 SCC 89 [4] 2007(4) ALT 808