IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD DATED: THIS the 18th day of April, 2011. PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR CRL.P.No. 3387 of 2011 Between: Sanjipogula Urukundappa ..Petitioner and The State of AP and others Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR CRL.P.No. 3387 of 2011 Order: The petitioner herein is shown as the accused in F.I.R.No. 130 of 2010 of Jubilee Hills Police Station, Hyderabad. He filed this petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings in the said FIR against him. 2. The offences alleged in the above case are those punishable under sections 354 and 506 IPC. It is seen that earlier on petitioner’s complaint the police commenced prosecution of the fourth respondent herein showing him as an accused in P.R.C.No. 110 of 2010 on the file of the court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Adoni for the offences punishable under sections 323 and 506 IPC and S. 3(i)(x) of Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The said P.R.C.No.110 of 2010 arises out of Cr.No. 91 of 2008 of Kosgi Police Station. 3. The plea of the petitioner is that the third respondent herein is the maid servant of the fourth respondent and that as a counter blast to the above P.R.C.No. 110 of 2010, the fourth respondent herein by pressing into service the third respondent got the present case foisted against him. The learned counsel for the petitioner also pointed out that the allegations in the present FIR are bald and having regard to this aspect and also the plea of counter blast taken by him, the FIR in question should be quashed. On the other hand the learned Public Prosecutor who has also been heard at this admission stage pointed out that the allegations in the FIR do disclose the offence of misbehavior against the third respondent which may attract S.354 IPC and consequently there are no grounds to quash the FIR. 4. It should be noted that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the case is a false one and has been foisted as a counter blast to the above P.R.C. No. 110of 2010 may be correct or may not be correct. The petitioner has also pleaded alibi saying that he was at his village but not at Hyderabad on the date of offence. It may be noted that whether the plea of alibi set up by the petitioner is correct or not and whether the other plea that the case against him is a counter blast to the above P.R.C.No.110 of 2010 are all disputed questions of fact which have to be decided only on evidence and that exercise cannot be done by this court and it has to be enquiried only in the enquiry or on evidence in trial. In these circumstances I am unable to agree with the contentions of the petitioner’s counsel. Accordingly this petition is dismissed. 5. However coming to the arrest of the petitioner, the petitioner is at liberty to place before the Investigating Officer all his evidence relating to his plea of alibi and he may take it into account in coming to a final conclusion in the matter. The investigating officer shall also keep in view S. 41 Cr.P.C. relating to the necessity of arrest of the petitioner and take appropriate action in his discretion in that behalf. _____________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J. April 18, 2011. *BVS