IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRL.P.NO.3747 OF 2010. Date:27.04.2010 Between:- Sarangam Srinivasulu and another ..Petitioners/Accused And The State of Andhra Pradesh, Through SHO, I-Town P.S. Gudur, Rep.by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another. .. Respondents ORDER:- The petitioners 1 and 2, who are husband and wife, are accused of offence punishable under Section 324/34 I.P.C. in C.C.No.8 of 2006 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Gudur. The petitioners are seeking quashing of proceedings in that criminal case herein. 2. Admittedly, there is dispute with regard to site lying in between house of the petitioners and temple located opposite to their house. Previously, in W.P.No.14488 of 2002, this Court directed Mandal Revenue Officer, Gudur to demarcate the area belonging to the temples and on such demarcation, it will be open to the temple authorities to construct the proposed compound wall. It is stated that subsequent to the said writ petition, there was no demarcation of temple site by the revenue authorities and inspite of it, the temple authorities intended to make constructions in the disputed site and therefore, the petitioners 1 and 2 obstructed the temple authorities from doing so; and that the petitioners 1 and 2 were abused in filthy language and were beaten up. The petitioners 1 and 2 gave a representation to the police on the said incident on 07.02.2006. On the same day, offence in the present case also is stated to have occurred. It is alleged that on 07.02.2006, when mason and coolie were attending flooring works, both the accused came to them and obstructed their works; and that the mason and the coolie went to the temple and informed the same to Chairman and Endowments Officer of the temple; and that they came out from the temple and were supervising the works; and that at about 11.00 hours, A-1 and A-2 came to them and abused them in filthy language; and that A-1 picked up a stone and pounced on the Chairman and beat him on left temple region causing bleeding injury; and that A-1 and A-2 also tried to assualt the remaining persons. 3. Admittedly, there are disputes between the prosecution party and the accused. It is a case where Chairman of the Temple suffered bleeding head injury in the incident. Simply because no action was taken by the police on report given by the accused, who did not suffer any injuries at all, it cannot be said that the police cannot prosecute the petitioners, who are alleged to have caused bleeding head injury to the Chairman with stones. Truth or falsity of the allegations in the charge sheet is a question of fact, which this Court cannot go into and decide in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 4. Hence, the petition is dismissed. _​_________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J 27th April 2010 AMD