IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD Wednesday, the 29th day of June, 2011 Present: Hon’ble Sri Justice N. Ravi Shankar Crl.P.No. 5148 of 2011 Between: M. Penchalaiah …Petitioner and The State of AP and another …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR Crl.P.No. 5148 of 2011 O r d e r: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 2. In this petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioner herein is seeking quashing of the FIR in Cr.No. 60 of 2010 of Nellore II Town Police Station. The offence alleged is one under section 324 IPC. This petitioner and another constable are said to have assaulted the de facto complainant and his friend. The petitioner’s counsel has pointed that departmental proceedings were initiated against this petitioner and in those proceedings the de facto complainant failed to identify the constable who assaulted him or stated that the petitioner is not that constable and basing on this statement the petitioner’s counsel says that the FIR should be quashed. 3. It may be noted that the departmental proceedings are not binding on the investigating officer in a criminal case, though they may be relevant for the purpose of investigation. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor pointed out that in the hospital intimation pertaining to the incident and the injury, the de facto complainant gave the name of the petitioner as the constable who assaulted him and therefore this is not a fit case for interference. I agree with the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that having regard to the allegations made in the FIR and the hospital intimation, this is not fit case for interference and accordingly this petition is dismissed at the admission stage. 4. However, having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding arrest of the petitioner and having regard to the copy of the statement said to have been given by the de facto complainant in the departmental proceedings, the police can take a decision about arrest of the petitioner after completion of the investigation. _____________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J. June 29, 2011. *BVS