HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No. 1150 of 2009 And CRIMINAL PETITION No. 1672 of 2009 COMMON ORDER: The petitioner in criminal petition No. 1150 of 2009 who is stated to be a Law student, is accused of offences punishable under Sections 420 and 506 IPC in Crime No. 157 of 2008 of Sabbavaram Police Station. The petitioners 1 to 4/A1 to A4 in Crl.P.No. 1672 of 2009 are accused of offences punishable under Sections 384, 342, 506 IPC in crime No. 156 of 2008 of the same police station. Both of them are seeking quashing of the respective crimes on the ground that the other is a counter blast in the crime lodged against them and that ingredients of the penal sections are not attracted. 2. The subject matter of dispute between the parties is Scorpio vehicle bearing No. AP 31 AG 4568 and P.Lakshmana Kumar is owner of the said vehicle. It is alleged that Akkireddy Ramesh agreed to purchase the said vehicle from Lakshmana Kumar for Rs.4,00,000/- and paid Rs.3,00,000/- to Ramesh and that at the time of payment Ramesh obtained three promissory notes and one sale letter from Lakshmana Kumar and also obtained registration certificate of the vehicle and that subsequently, Lakshmana Kumar began dodging the transaction and that later when the vehicle was found in Bazar and when Ramesh enquired inmates of the vehicle they informed him about Lakshmana Kumar selling the same vehicle to them and receiving Rs.2,00,000/- from them. With those allegations, Ramesh lodged a report in Crime No. 157 of 2008 against Lakshmana Kumar for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 506 IPC. It is further alleged therein that on 28.9.2008 when he questioned Lakshmana Kumar about it, Lakshmana Kumar threatened to kill him using his influence. 3. On the other hand, in his report against Ramesh and others, Lakshmana Kumar alleged that on 28.9.2008, Ramesh along with others came to his house and threatened Lakshmana Kumar with dire consequences by trespassing into his house and forcebly extracted three promissory notes and a letter from him and also extracted ‘C’ certificate of the vehicle. With the said allegations, reported in Crime No. 156 of 2008 was lodged with the police. 4. Both the crimes were registered by the police with a difference of five minutes time. It is evident that both the persons simultaneously went to the police station and gave their respective reports and that police registered one report after the other. Therefore, it cannot be contended at this stage that one report is the counter blast for the other. The above reading of both the reports discloses necessary ingredients in each of the reports relating to the offences which were registered against the respective parties. Truth or otherwise of the said reports and which of the two parties is at fault and committed the offence is a question of fact, which this court cannot go into in these petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The said exercise has to be done by the Investigating Officer (S) during investigation. It would be premature for this court to conclude that one of the two reports is counter blast for the other and that there is no truth in any of the two reports. Therefore, I do not wish to quash any of the FIRs in these petitions at their threshold. 5. In the result, both the petitions are dismissed. ___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Dt. 27.1.2011. Mjl/* HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No. 1150 of 2009 And CRIMINAL PETITION No. 1672 of 2009 Dt. 27.1.2011 Mjl/*