THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 10381 OF 2010 Dated 29th April, 2010 Between: M.Krishna Reddy …Petitioner And The Station House Officer and another …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri T.Rajani Kanth Reddy for Sri G.Raghu Counsel for respondent No.1: AGP for Home The Court made the following ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to quash Crime No.103 of 2010 to the extent it pertains to the petitioner. I have heard Sri. T.Rajani Kanth Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri C.Raghu, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent No.1. On the report given by respondent No.2, respondent No.1 registered the abovementioned crime against the petitioner and two others. In the first information report, respondent No.2 stated that he along with others advanced loan of Rs.40 lakhs to P.Sampath Kumar and his father by name P.Sitaramulu; that since 15.03.2010, P.Sampath Kumar, who collected money from him and others, has been absconding and that the said Sampath Kumar and his father Sitaramulu approached the petitioner, who is described as a rowdy sheeter. It is further stated that the petitioner called respondent No.2 and other victims over phone and threatened them to settle the dispute, otherwise they will not receive even a pie. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if at all it is only accused Nos.1 and 2, namely; P.Sampath Kumar and his father Sitaramulu, who have committed the offences alleged in the first information report, and the petitioner has nothing to do with the transactions between them and respondent No.2. He also submitted that the petitioner is not a rowdy sheeter and that he never interfered in the disputes between respondent No.2 and the accused. In my opinion, it is not possible for this Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to pronounce upon the guilt or otherwise of the petitioner at this stage. It is not as if the allegations made in the first information report do not constitute commission of an offence by the petitioner under IPC though the ingredients of Sections 406 and 420 IPC may not be attracted qua the petitioner. Even if appropriate provision is not mentioned in the first information report, that cannot be a ground to quash the first information report. It is always open to the police to alter the provision of law after completing the investigation. In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the writ petition for this Court to interfere with the investigation at this stage. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP No.13320 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 29th April, 2010 vrn