IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION NO : 2596 of 2009 Between: Kumari Ambali, D/o. Sukumaran, R/o. H.No. 1-2-366/2, 3rd Floor, Banda Nagar, Komalguda, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 State of A.P., through Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad, through P.S.Chikkadpally, Hyderabad. 2 Sri Daniel Suresh Kumar, S/o. Herald David, R/o. Plot No.40, Rock Town, Behind Kamineni Hospital , L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed therewith, the High Court will be pleased to quash the S.C. No. 308 of 2008 on the file of the VII Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad against petitioner/A2. The Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Mr.P. VISHNUVARDHAN REDDY, Advocate for the Petitioner and of the Public Prosecutor, on behalf of the Respondent. The Court made the following: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.2596 OF 2009 ORDER: Heard Sri P. Vishnu Vardhan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A. Ramesh, learned counsel who entered appearance on behalf of the learned Public Prosecutor for the first respondent. No notice is being ordered to the second respondent as the matter is being disposed of at the stage of admission. The Sessions Case No. 308 of 2008 on the file of the VII Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, against the petitioner and another arose out of the gruesome killing of an young boy aged five and half years, allegedly by his father, who in his infatuation towards the petitioner herein allegedly put an end to the life of his own son considering him to be standing in the way of his entering into a marital tie with the petitioner. Though, it is true that the petitioner was not alleged in any manner to be involved in the murder of the infant boy, the accusation against her is that in spite of having knowledge about the killing of the deceased at the hands of the first accused, she did not disclose it to the parents of the first accused who are known to her or to the police and thereby concealed the offence committed by the first accused. The Criminal petition pleads and the learned counsel for the petitioner emphasized the fact that, the allegations in the charge sheet may not disclose even remotely any allegation of causing disappearance of evidence of an offence or giving false information in respect of an offence to constitute an offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “I.P.C.). It was further contended that the petitioner, who married a person of her parents’ choice and not in any way responsible for the conduct of the first accused, cannot be further prosecuted on such allegations. It is true that an offence under Section 201 of the I.P.C. is concerning causing any evidence of the commission of the offence disappearing or giving any information with respect to an offence which such person knows or believes to be false, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment and it may be a debatable question as to whether the allegations against the petitioner herein can be construed to constitute an offence under Section 201 of the I.P.C. However, the Court of Session is seized of the entire matter and it has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the matter is still coming for appearance of the accused before the trial Court. If so, the petitioner can appropriately move the Court of Session for discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, under which, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therein and after hearing the submissions of the accused and prosecution in this behalf, the learned Judge may consider that there is no sufficient ground to proceed against the petitioner herein on which he may opt to discharge the petitioner herein after recording the reasons for so doing. When the petitioner has an efficacious remedy in the event of being able to establish the sustainability of her claims in law and fact before the Court of Session itself, it will be improper and unsafe to embark upon such exercise in summary proceedings under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. It has been repeatedly held by the Apex Court that the probability, reliability and genuineness of a case can not be gone into in an adjudication by the High Court in such a proceeding and disputed questions of fact are better left open for the Courts of competent jurisdiction to be determined on merits. As the Court of Session has to go into the entire record of the case including the documents placed before it, before discharging a person or framing charges against such person, the same will be a better forum to consider whether any offence has been made out prima-facie for framing a charge against such person and if so, in respect of what offence such a prima-facie material exists against such person. Under the circumstances, the approach of the petitioner to this court appears to be premature and need not be entertained. Therefore, the Criminal petition is dismissed with a liberty to the petitioner to approach the Court of Session with any appropriate application for discharge or for any other relief to which she is entitled to under law which request shall be considered by Court of Session on its own merits in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any of the observations made in this order. ____________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 06-08-2009. Dsh.