THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRIMINAL PETITION No.3330 OF 2009 DATED:23-12-2010 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., for quashing further proceedings in P.R.C.No.13 of 2008 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandikotkur. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondents-State. Perused the record. 3. Petitioners-A1 to A9 are facing prosecution under Sections 498-A and 307 r/w 109 IPC. On the basis of the dying declaration given by the deceased, police registered a case in Cr.No.59 of 2007 initially under Sections 498-A and 307 IPC and after the death of the deceased, the Section of law was altered to 302 IPC. After due investigation, police filed charge sheet against the petitioners-A1 to A9 and the same was taken cognizance in P.R.C.No.13 of 2008 by the learned Magistrate. According to the prosecution, on 27-10-2007 at about 7.00 a.m. while the deceased was sweeping the house her mother-in-law-A2 abused her for not sweeping properly and that in the presence of A2 and A3, her husband-A1 kicked the deceased and the deceased hit the wall and sustained bleeding injuries on the mouth and at about 8.00 a.m. A1 asked his mother-A2 to bring kerosene tin and A2 brought the same and A1 snatched the gold ornaments from the deceased and poured kerosene on her and set her fire as a result of which, the deceased received burns and on hearing her cries, the neighbours gathered and shifted the deceased to hospital, where she died while undergoing treatment. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that in the dying declaration recorded by the learned Magistrate at 11.45 a.m. on 27-10-2007, the deceased has stated that she herself poured kerosene and set fire to herself, which falsifies the case of the prosecution. 5. It is to be noted that at 2.00 p.m. on the same day, police recorded another dying declaration of the deceased, wherein she has narrated the ill-treatment and harassment meted out to her by her in-laws and also about the incident that took place on that morning. In the said dying declaration, it is specifically stated that A1 asked his mother-A2 to bring kerosene tin and she brought the same and A1 after removing the gold jewels from the person of the deceased, poured kerosene on her and set her fire. The relative evidentiary value of the two dying declarations is a matter to be appreciated by the trial Court during the course of trial. Which of the two dying declarations is to be preferred over the other is a question to be considered in the light of the other evidence, direct and circumstantial, that may be adduced by the prosecution during the course of trial. Simply because there have been two dying declarations of the deceased which contain two different versions, the whole proceedings cannot be held to be abuse of process of law nor they call for quashing by invoking the inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the names of A4 to A9 have not been stated in the First Information Report and hence, the proceedings against them are unwarranted. 7. It is established proposition of law that the First Information Report need not contain the names of all the accused nor the details of the incident nor the overt acts attributed to the accused. First Information Report is intended to set the criminal law into motion. After due investigation, police have filed the charge sheet, wherein the specific role placed by the other accused-A4 to A9 and the nature, extent and level of their involvement in the alleged offences is stated. In view of the specific allegations contained in the charge sheet against all the accused, including A4 to A9, the truth or otherwise of which has to be considered only at the time of trial, it is held that further proceedings against the petitioners-A4 to A9 are not liable to be quashed simply because their names are not mentioned in the First Information Report. Having regard to the gravity of the nature of the offences alleged and in view of the serious allegations made against the accused, it is considered not at all a fit case to invoke the inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quash further proceedings against the accused in P.R.C.No.13 of 2008. 8. It is well settled that the inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have to be exercised with care and caution and they cannot be invoked to scuttle the prosecution of the accused, especially when the investigation disclosed, prima facie commission of the alleged offences. 9. In the circumstances, it is held that the inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked in the present case in view of the fact that the ingredients of the offences alleged are prima facie attracted. 10. In the result, Criminal Petition is dismissed. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 23rd December, 2010 Tsy