HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1655 OF 2007 Date: 04.02.2010 Between: Grandhi Nageswara Rao and 8 others ……Petitioners And: K. Narasinga Rao and another ……Respondents. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1655 OF 2007 ORDER: This petition is filed by the accused Nos. 1 to 9 under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing proceedings in C.C.No.190 of 2000 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Anakapalle relating to offences punishable under Sections 323, 427 and 447 I.P.C. In the first instance, on report given by the 1st respondent/defacto- complainant, the police registered case against four persons in Crime No.28 of 1999 for offences punishable under Sections 447, 427, 506, 323/34 I.P.C. After investigation, the police are stated to have filed final report referring the case as one of civil nature. Thereupon, the 1st respondent filed private complaint in the lower court alleging offences punishable under Sections 323, 379, 427, 447 and 506 I.P.C., against A-1 to A-9. After enquiry, the lower court took the complaint on file against A-1 to A-9 for offences punishable under Sections 323, 427, 447 I.P.C only. It may be noted that in report given to the police, the 1st respondent named only A-1 to A-4 as offenders by saying that 20 others also participated in the offence along with A-1 to A-4. In the private complaint, the 1st respondent named A-1 to A-4 as well as five others as A-5 to A-9. This Court of the opinion that it is a matter for appreciation of evidence as to how many persons participated in the offence and whether any of A-1 to A-9 were there. This Court in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C cannot go into questions of fact and decide the same. It is for the trial court to decide the same after trial in which evidence to be let in by both the parties will be recorded. It is contended that though the case has been pending since the year 2000, trial of the case was not taken up and because of the same, the petitioners out of whom there are senior citizens also who are suffering a lot. If both the advocates co-operated with disposal of the case in the lower court, the lower court would not have hesitated to dispose of the same on merits after trial. The lower Court alone cannot be blamed for any delay in disposal of the case; and the parties and their advocates should also share the blame. I do not find any valid and legal reasons to quash proceedings in the criminal case. In the result, the petition is dismissed. However, the lower court is directed to see that C.C.No.190 of 2004 is disposed of after full trial within four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Both the parties and their counsel are expected to assist the Court in disposing of the case. ___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J Date:04.02.2010. Gk. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1655 OF 2007 Date: 04.02.2010 Gk.