HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR Crl.P. No. 2632 of 2009 DATED: 28.12.2011 Between: V. Viswanatha Reddy and three others .. Petitioners And 1. State rep. by the S.H.O. 2. A. Gopal .. Respondents O R D E R:- 1. Heard Sri D. Seshasayana Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri B.Viswanatha Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri G..Vijaya Saradhi, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 2. The petitioners herein are A1 to A4 in P.R.C. No. 2 of 2009 on the file of the Court of IV Additional District Munsif Magistrate, Chiittoor. The offences alleged against the petitioners are those punishable under Sections 341 and 506 IPC and also Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short “the Act”). 3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the present criminal case is a false one and is filed as a counterblast to the earlier litigation in civil proceedings which was decided in their favour and that the de facto complainant, in order to avenge them filed this criminal case and the police readily helped them in filing the charge sheet and all the allegations are false. This plea of the petitioners pertains to the merits in the matter and falls within the purview of the disputed questions of fact which cannot be gone into in this petition. One contention which was raised was that initially in the F.I.R., the details of the offence falling under Section 3(1) (x) of the Act were not mentioned but the police have subsequently in the charge sheet mentioned them. It is now settled that it is open for the police to investigate the mater and gather details about the said offence and file charge sheet if the material gathered by them shows the said offence. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners then pointed out that earlier the petitioners also filed a writ petition i.e. W.P. No.9603 of 2008 before this Court and obtained interim order of status quo regarding possession of the land, but the controversy relating to the possession of the land is not the main controversy in this criminal case and it may be relevant regarding the question whether the offences alleged are true or not and that has to be decided on evidence. To sum up, the allegations in the charge sheet do disclose the offences for which it is filed and hence this is not a fit case for interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 5. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. So far as the detention of the petitioners is concerned the concerned Court may keep in view the principle enacted in Section 41 Cr.P.C. __________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J 28.12.2011 bcj