IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION) THURSDAY, TWENTY THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.506 of 2009 CRIMINAL PETITION No.506 of 2009 BETWEEN: Smt Boppana Ramarajyam … PETITIONER(S) And The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another … RESPONDENT(S) THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.506 of 2009 ORDER: Heard Sri Shaik Mastan Vali, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The point that arises for determination in this criminal petition which is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is whether the proceedings in C.C.No.361 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kaikalur, should be quashed against the petitioner who is A-2 in the case. 3. The allegations against the petitioner are that herself and her husband goaded a boy to climb a tree and pluck some country beans and in that process the boy fell down and suffered simple injuries. The record shows that earlier the case was registered for an offence punishable under Section 338 IPC and FIR was issued. The record further shows that at that stage both the petitioners filed Criminal Petition No.5347 of 2008 for quashing the proceedings at the stage of FIR. 4. This Court by its order dated 25.08.2008 disposed of that Criminal Petition allowing it only so far as A-1 is concerned but dismissed it so far as A-2 is concerned observing that a reading of the complaint would show that the offence under Section 338 IPC is definitely constituted against the second petitioner and quashed the FIR against the first petitioner for the offence under Section 338 IPC alone. It is seen that thereafter the police completed investigation and filed charge sheet against both A-1 and A-2 alleging against them the offences punishable under Section 337 IPC and Section 134(a) & (b) read with Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Sri T.V.Ramana Rao, representing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, says that subsequently A-1 was discharged from the case by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kaikalur. 5. The present petition is filed by A-2 in the case to quash the proceedings against her. In the course of arguments, to a specific question from the Court as to how this petition can be entertained in view of the dismissal of the earlier quash petition so far as A-2 is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner says that the earlier quash petition was filed only when the matter was at the stage of investigation and the case was registered under Section 338 IPC and the present quash petition was filed after the completion of investigation and filing of charge sheet for different offences i.e. under Section 337 IPC and under Section 134 (a) and (b) read with Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 6. It is true as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Section 134 of the Motor Vehicles Act may not be applicable to the case but this question has to be decided by the trial Court. It may however be noted that so far as causing hurt by rash or negligent act, this Court earlier in Criminal Petition No.5347 of 2008 and gave a categorical finding that there is a case made out against A-2 but that opinion of this Court is not final and the matter has to be decided after the conclusion of the trial or even at the threshold depending upon the defence raised before the concerned criminal Court. 7. The contention of the petitioner is that earlier the offence under Section 338 IPC was mentioned in the FIR and the charge sheet now shows an offence under Section 337 IPC and therefore this quash petition can be entertained cannot be accepted as the act is one and the same though the offences which it constitutes may have differed. 8. In the above circumstances, there is no ground to quash the proceedings and this Criminal Petition is accordingly dismissed. It shall be open for the petitioner to raise all her defences before the concerned Judicial First Class Magistrate Court with regard to each and every aspect in the matter and the same shall be considered by the said Court and decided without being influenced in any manner by this order. ______________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J 23rd December, 2010 CVRK