IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY THE TWENTYFIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKER CRL.P.NO. 4789 OF 2009 Between: Abdul Wajid … Petitioner-Accused V/s. The State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by its Public Prosecutor High Court of AP Hyderabad & Anr.… Respondents-complainant Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri M.A. Mujeed Counsel for the Respondents : Addl.Public Prosecutor The Court made the following : (Order follows next page) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKER CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4789 OF 2009 O R D E R : Heard Sri M.A. Mujeeb, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State. 2. It is seen that no notice is taken out to the second respondent but having regard to the facts and circumstances it is not necessary also. The petitioner herein is the accused in CC.No. 57 of 2009 on the file of the Court of VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. This Criminal Petition is filed for quashing the said case. 3. The record shows that the defacto complainant, who is the second respondent herein filed a private complaint before the trial court and that was referred to the police and after investigation the police filed charge sheet under section 506 IPC i.e., criminal intimidation. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner says that civil suits are pending between the petitioner and the husband of the defacto complainant and this criminal case is a counter-blast to the said civil litigation. It may be noted that the allegations made in the complaint would show that the petitioner on the date of the alleged incident went to the house of the defacto complainant and threatened her and her children to disfigure them or kill them with acid unless her husband withdraw the cases. It is seen that an allegation was also made that a revolver was used by the petitioner, but the concerned police in the charge sheet stated that their investigation disclosed that only threat was made and no revolver was used. Basing on this lapse or omission and the pendency of civil litigation, the learned counsel for the petitioner says that there is absolutely no basis for the prosecution and therefore the case should be quashed treating it as counter-blast to the civil litigation. It may be noted that all the pleas raised by the petitioner relating to the question whether the allegations in the case are true or not constitute disputed questions of fact, which cannot be gone into in this petition. In other words, all the pleas taken by the petitioner have to be decided by the trial court, as the allegations mentioned in the charge sheet do disclose offence of criminal intimidation. 5. In these circumstances, this petition is dismissed. However, the trial court may take steps for expeditious disposal of the case. __________________________ JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKER. 25-11-2011 I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKER CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4789 OF 2009 CIRCULATION No. Date:25-11-2011 Court Master: I s L Computer No. 43