HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.7217 of 2007 & 3859 OF 2008 DATE:18-11-2010 CRIMINAL PETITION No.7217 OF 2007 BETWEEN Kurra Chandrasekhara Azad …Petitioner AND Pilla Venkateswara Rao & Another …Respondents CRIMINAL PETITION No.3859 OF 2008 BETWEEN Pilla Venkateswara Rao …Petitioner AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad & Another …Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.7217 of 2007 & 3859 OF 2008 COMMON ORDER: Petitioner-accused in C.C.No.1305 of 2007 filed Crl.P.No.7217 of 2007 to quash the proceedings against him initiated for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC. Whereas, Crl.P.No.3859 of 2008 is filed by the first respondent in Crl.P.No.7217 of 2007 to direct V Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur to try C.C.No.1305 of 2007 along with C.C.No.1311 of 2007 in which he was arrayed as accused for the offence under Section 325 IPC. With regard to the incident that took place on 10.8.2007 between the parties, a case and counter case were registered. The first respondent in Crl.P.No.7217 of 2007 is the complainant in Crime No.242 of 2007 and accused in Crime No.241 of 2007 registered for the offences under Sections 326, 506, r/w 34 IPC; and 324 IPC respectively. Sri K.Raja Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Crl.P.No.7217 of 2007 contends that the complaint allegations clearly discloses that the petitioner bite the de facto complainant severally, and whereas, the first respondent- complainant has fisted on the mouth of the petitioner, due to which, the petitioner lost his three teeth of lower jaw, and therefore, the first respondent was rightly charged for the offence under Sections 326 and 506 IPC. But by mere biting by the petitioner, only a simple injury was caused to the complainant and therefore, the case clearly falls under Section 323 IPC, which is a non-cognizable offence, and hence, unless the investigation is ordered by the learned Magistrate under Section 155 (2) Cr.P.C., the police cannot investigate into the matter. The complaint allegations show that there are two crimes registered. Crime No.241 of 2007 was registered under Section 324 I.P.C. against the petitioner in Crl.P.No.7217 of 2007; and a counter case in Crime No.242 of 2007 was registered under Sections 326 and 506 IPC against the petitioner in Crl.P.No.3859 of 2008. Inasmuch as cognizable and non-cognizable offences have been registered out of the same incident, police can investigate into both the Crimes and can lay the charge sheet. Therefore, the bar under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. does not attract for such investigation even if the contention of the petitioner is accepted that he can be charged for the offence under Section 323 IPC but not under Section 324 IPC. This Court does not find any merits to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1305 of 2007. Accordingly, Crl.P.No.7217 of 2007 is dismissed. Inasmuch as both the crimes arose out of the same incident, the V Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur is directed to have a joint trial in C.C.No.1311 of 2007 and 1305 of 2007. The Crl.P.No.3859 of 2008 is allowed accordingly. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. NOVEMBER 18, 2010 Tsr.