IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.5186 of 2009 DATE: 28.10.2011 Between: Khelwa Rajender Singh and 2 others …… Petitioners And The State of A.P, through Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P, Hyderabad and another …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.5186 of 2009 ORDER : The petitioners 1 to 3/A-1 to A-3 are accused of offences punishable under Sections 447, 427, 506 I.P.C and Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (prevention of atrocities) Act, 1989. After completing investigation, the police filed charge sheet. Along with the charge sheet, A-2 and A-3 were produced in the lower Court after their arrest. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that in the F.I.R given by the 2nd respondent defacto- complainant, participation by A-1 alone was mentioned and not presence of A-2 and A-3. A-2 and A-3 are sons of A-1. It is further pointed out that the 2nd respondent in the statement given to the investigating officer under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C developed the case and alleged participation of A-2 and A-3 also in the offence. It is contended that inclusion of A-2 and A-3 in the case is an after thought and it has no basis in F.I.R. In my opinion, the said exercise amounts to appreciation of evidence of P.W-1 and assessment of his evidence. It is a matter which has to be undertaken by the trial Court. This Court while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C cannot undertake the said exercise. It amounts to pre-trial before factual trial. In F.I.R, name of A-1 alone is shown in the subject. But in the entire report, the 2nd respondent alleged that the above persons committed the entire offence. He describes the accused in plurality and not in singularity even though in the subject, name of only A-1 is mentioned. 2) It is further contended by the petitioners’ counsel that there are disputes relating to the property in occupation of the accused and that the dispute is predominantly of civil in nature and that previously there was one writ petition questioning notification of the Government issued with regard to the land in occupation of the accused and others and there was another writ petition in which the Mandal Revenue Officer was directed to preserve the property in question. Irrespective of the dispute relating to property, the allegations in this case attract the penal provisions of law in respect of which the charge sheet is filed. Truth or otherwise of the said allegations is a question of fact which the trial Court/special Court has to decide after recording evidence to be let in by both the parties. I do not find any valid or legal reasons to quash the charge sheet in respect of either A-1 or A-2 and A-3. 3) Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J October 28, 2011 ksh