IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD DATED: THIS the 18th day of April, 2011 PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR CRL.P.No. 3392 of 2011 Between: Syed Hamza Hussainy ..Petitioner and The State and another Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR CRL.P.No. 3392 of 2011 O r d e r: The petitioner is the accused in Cr.No. 22 of 2011 of Duttalur P.S., Nellore District. He filed this petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the said FIR. 2. The offence alleged is one under section 406 IPC. The petitioner is stated to be the correspondent of Hussainy College of Education situated at Venkatampeta (v) Duttalur Mandal, Nellore District. The charge is that the petitioner being the correspondent of the said college has withdrawn the social welfare scholarship amounts granted for S.C. students of his college and misappropriated the same without disbursing the amounts to the said students. That is what is in substance mentioned in the complaint. The report was given by the Assistant Social Welfare Officer, Udayagiri. The version of the petitioner is otherwise and he says that he has disbursed the amounts to the students and he also filed certain documents to show that he did disburse the amounts. The version of the prosecution is that they are false entries. Nothing can be said about the same now and the whole matter has to be investigated by the police. 3. Another contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the offence under section 406 IPC is punishable with imprisonment for three years, that the FIR shows that the offence has been committed during the period 2006 – 2007 and as the FIR was registered on 25-3-2011 the same can be said to be barred by limitation and therefore the FIR should be quashed on that ground. 4. May be the FIR is registered on 25-3-2011. It may however be noted that it is only during the investigation the police can ascertain as to what offences have been committed and whether any exception to the Rules of limitation are also available for prosecuting the petitioner. All these aspects are disputed questions of fact, which cannot be gone into in this petition. What should be noted is that the allegations in the FIR do disclose offences against the petitioner and they have to be investigated. 5. In the above circumstances it follows that this petition cannot be entertained and the same is accordingly dismissed. 6. So far as arrest of the petitioner is concerned, the police may keep in view S. 41 Cr.P.C. as it stands now. _____________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J. April 18, 2011. *BVS