HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.292 of 2011 ORDER:- Petitioner in this criminal petition is the first accused (A-1) in Crime No.84/2010 of Aatreyapuram Police Station in East Godavari District. He filed this petition under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C) to quash the aforesaid FIR against him. 2. Heard counsel for both sides and also the learned public prosecutor. 3. Petitioner is the husband of the de facto complainant Raghavendri who is the third respondent herein. The aforesaid FIR was registered on her report for the offences punishable under Ss.498-A and 354 IPC and Ss.3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The FIR contents show that the marriage of the petitioner and t he de facto complainant is a love marriage but subsequently estrangement started between them and the de facto complainant gave the above report. 4. The allegations made in the FIR which is an elaborate one clearly show the aforesaid offences against the petitioner and they relate to harassment of wife for valuables and cash. The matter is pending investigation by the concerned police. Thus it cannot be said that this is a case where the allegations in the FIR even if believed do not show any offences. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the de facto complainant and her parents demanded him to settle some money and property in her name and also advised him to set up a separate family life deserting his mother and as he refused the present case has been foisted. This plea of the petitioner may be true or may not be true, but it should be noted that the said plea raises disputed questions of fact which have to be decided on evidence. Hence it follows that this Court cannot go into the said disputed facts in these proceedings. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner however filed certain documents along with Crl.M.P.No.3646 of 2011 in this petition and argued that this Court basing on the said documents can quash the FIR. The first document purports to be a writing of the de facto complainant. The second and third documents purport to be copies of a counterfoil of State Bank of Hyderabad, Eluru branch and xerox copies of the statement of account of the petitioner with the said bank. In the affidavit filed in support of the above criminal miscellaneous petition the petitioner has not made clear for what purpose he has filed the aforesaid counterfoil and copies of his statement of account and therefore they are not relevant to this petition. 6. Then turning to the document/ copy purporting to contain the writing of the de facto complainant, the petitioner says that it is the writing of the de facto complainant and the said writing would show that she is very much repenting for harassing him by filing false case and this itself shows that her earlier report which resulted in the registration of the FIR is false and therefore it should be quashed. The learned counsel for the petitioner even requested that the original of the above writing which is with the petitioner should be sent to an handwriting expert and that expert’s opinion would show that the said writing is that of the de facto complainant and that is enough to quash the FIR. 7. It maybe noted that the above plea of the petitioner may be correct or may not be correct, but to decide the same this Court has to again embark upon appreciation of evidence and that cannot be done in a petition under S.482 Cr.P.C. Hence the petitioner has to approach the concerned investigating officer with the above document as the matter is still pending investigation requesting him to consider the same and ascertain the truth in the course of investigation. Thus for the aforesaid reasons it follows that this Court cannot in this petition consider the above pleas of the petitioner as all the said pleas are within the realm of disputed questions of fact. 8. Accordingly it follows that this petition must fail and it is dismissed. ______________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J 28th April 2011 CVRK