IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.514 OF 2009 Between : Aruga Sridhar Babu and another .... PETITIONERS A N D State of Andhra Pradesh and another …RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 514 OF 2009 ORDER: Petitioners herein who are husband and wife are A.1 and A.2 in C.C.No.301 of 2008 on the file of Court of VII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Hayathnagar (trial Court). 2. The point that arises for determination in this criminal petition, which is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.”), is whether there are any grounds to quash the proceedings in the aforesaid C.C.No.301 of 2008. 3. A perusal of copy of charge sheet filed by the petitioners would show that the second petitioner / A.2 in the case is the daughter of the de facto complainant. The prosecution version is that some disputes broke out between the de facto complainant and the petitioners; and that on 29.04.2008 in the morning at about 6:00 A.M., both the petitioners high handedly restrained the de facto complainant in her house and assaulted her causing grievous hurt. Accordingly, the police investigated into the matter and charge sheeted both the petitioners for the offences under Sections 342 and 324 I.P.C. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that since the petitioners married against wish of the de facto complainant, she foisted this case against them. It is also their case that the concerned police have fabricated the evidence and filed this present criminal case against them. It may be noted that a perusal of the charge sheet would show that apart from the statement of the de facto complainant, the case is based on the statements of two eyewitnesses, who are said to be neighbours. Further, the Medical Officer, Government Hospital, L.B.Nagar, also cited as a witness. 5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the entire evidence mentioned above is fabricated one. This may be a good defence. But, it has to be examined by the trial Court, and this Court sitting under Section 482 Cr.P.C., cannot go into the truthfulness or otherwise of this case. The only contention, to repeat, is that the case is false. But, it may be noted once again that it has to be decided by the trial Court. The circumstances of this case would show that there are no grounds to interfere with the cognizance order of the trial Court. 6. Accordingly, this criminal petition is dismissed. It goes without saying that it is always open for the petitioners to file an application for discharge and as and when it is filed, the trial Court may take up and dispose of it in accordance with law. _____________________ N.RAVI SHANKAR,J DECEMBER 24, 2010. YVL