THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V. SEETHAPATHY CRIMINAL PETITION No. 10809 OF 2010 Dated: 03-11-2011 Between: Vanga Srinivas @ Ranga and two others ... PETITIONERS AND SHO, P.S., Gollapalem, East Godavari District, rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings at Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh and another ... RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J CRIMINAL PETITION No. 10809 OF 2010 ORDER: This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C for quashing of the proceedings in F.I.R No. 68 of 2010 of Gollapalem Police Station, East Godavari District. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. None appeared for the 2nd respondent. Perused the records. On a complaint given by the 2nd respondent, the police registered a case in Crime No. 68 of 2010 against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 427, 435 read with Section 34 IPC and 454 and 448 IPC. According to the complainant, he was working as a Manager of Asmitha Micro Finance Company at Kajuluru Branch and that in view of the ordinance issued by the Government, the activities of the micro finance company were stopped and, therefore, himself and his staff members were not attending the office since four days prior to the occurrence. In the complaint, it is alleged that on 22-10-2010 at about 2.00 PM, the 1st petitioner – A-1 along with others came to the office of the micro finance company and break open the locks and trespassed into the office and brought the furniture i.e., six ‘S’ type chairs, four fibre chairs, registers, computer and printer etc., out of the office and burnt them and caused damage. On the neighbours witnessing the incident and being informed by them, the complainant rushed to the place of occurrence and later gave the complaint. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the names of the persons who have witnessed the alleged occurrence are not disclosed in the complaint and, therefore, the complaint suffers from the vice of vagueness. It is well settled that the complaint can be lodged by anyone, not necessarily by the person who has witnessed the occurrence and secondly, the names of the witnesses need not be mentioned in the complaint. Whether anyone has witnessed the alleged occurrence and if so, who has witnessed the occurrence are matters of investigation. Having regard to the nature of the offence alleged, further proceedings in pursuance of the F.I.R cannot be quashed simply because the names of the other accused or the names of the witnesses are not mentioned in the F.I.R. Truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint have to be ascertained only after due investigation. There are absolutely no valid or sufficient grounds to invoke the inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C at this threshold stage. The investigation shall, therefore, go on. But, however, the petitioners may not be arrested till the completion of the investigation. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Dt. 03-11-2011 ks