THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY Crl.P.No.6512 of 2007 Date of Order: 30-07-2010 Between: Katta Jaswantha Rao ..Petitioner and 1.The State of A.P. rep.by its P.P. and another ..Respondents The Court made the following Order: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY Crl.P.No.6512 of 2007 Oral order: Petitioner, who is accused No.3 in P.R.C.No.17 of 2007 registered for the offence under Sections 324, 326, 307 r/w 34 IPC, filed this petition to quash the proceedings pending on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bapatla, Guntur District. The allegations in the charge sheet disclose that L.Ws.1 and 2 are coming on a moped to get the electrical goods; when L.W.1 stopped the vehicle for having tea, on seeing them the accused picked up deadly weapons like rods, knives and threatened them. A3, petitioner herein, hacked L.W.1 with a knife on the head in order to kill him resulting bleeding injury; A5 hacked L.W.1 with knife; A4 stabbed L.W.1 on his chest causing cut injury on the left palm; A6 beat L.W.1 with an iron road on the right hand and A2 beat him with an iron road on the same hand; then L.W.1 fell down with injuries. A1 came from behind and seeing the injured alive, he hacked the L.W.1 with a knife on the head, in order to kill him; when L.W.2, who was along with L.W.1, called the persons going on the road by raising cries; L.Ws.3 and 4 came there then the accused ran away from the scene of offence. On the statement of L.W.1, L.W.9 registered a case in Cr.No.9/2007 for the offence punishable under Section 324 r/w 34 IPC and investigated into the matter and during the course of investigation police altered the section of law by incorporating Section 307 IPC. The statement recorded by L.W.9 clearly indicates that petitioner (A3) hacked L.W.1 with a knife causing bleeding injuries. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in the first instance the case was registered under Section 324 r/w 34 IPC thereafter, section of law was altered by addition Section 307 IPC; that the statement of defacto complainant did not name the persons who attacked him which was also entered in the General Diary; suppressing the above statement the police recorded the statement falsely implicating the petitioner; therefore, the FIR is hit by Section 161 Cr.P.C. The delay of 5 days in giving the report to the police is vital to the case of the prosecution. All the contentions and grounds raised here to quash the proceedings are matters of evidence, which can be produced during the course of trial and can be taken into consideration for acquittal of the accused, on petitioner establishing that FIR is hit by Section 161 Cr.P.C. Though the names of the persons attacked have not been stated in the earlier statement, they are not entitled for quashment and the prosecution should be given an opportunity to lead evidence about the participation of the petitioner, which was altered after recording the statement of the defacto complainant. The Courts while deciding the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. will have to see only whether the allegations made in the complaint or in the charge sheet would make a prima facie case or not to proceed with the trial and what is the possible out come of the result on appreciation of the evidence cannot be taken into consideration as did by the Madras High Court i n SETHURAJAN v. STATE[1] on which strong reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Since the allegations in the charge sheet, prima facie, establish involvement of the petitioner (A3) in the offence, it is not desirable to quash the proceedings at the initial stage without giving an opportunity to the prosecution to prove the charge against the petitioner. The Criminal Petition is accordingly dismissed. If the petitioner files an application under Section 317 Cr.P.C. for dispensing with his presence, the Magistrate shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders. _________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. 30-07-2010 Murthy [1] 1989 APLJ (Crl.) 406