IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.5773 of 2010 Between: G. Venkatramana & 5 others .. Petitioners AND The State of A.P. & another .. Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.5773 of 2010 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to quash the Charge Sheet in S.C.No.106 of 2010, on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Madanapalle, Chittoor District, arising out of Crime No.185 of 2009, on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Madanapalle, Chittoor District. 2. Heard. 3. The second respondent is the de facto complainant. On a complaint given by the second respondent herein, the police registered a case in Crime No.185 of 2009, under Sections 324 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “IPC”). However, after completing investigation, the police filed charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 324, 307 and 506 IPC read with 149 IPC. Then, the second respondent herein seems to have filed a memo to take cognizance against the petitioners under Section 307 IPC through the learned Public Prosecutor. Then, after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor, cognizance was taken for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 148 IPC. 4. The grievance of the petitioners is that except the 5th petitioner, petitioner Nos.2 to 4 and 6 are not residing at the village. It is further submitted that the first petitioner is aged about 80 years. 5. Whether the allegations are true or not, whether petitioners Nos.2 to 4 and 6 were residing at the village on the date of offence or not, cannot be gone into in these proceedings. Similarly, whether taking of cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC is correct or not, also cannot be enquired into in these proceedings. 6. Criminal proceedings can be quashed only in a case where even if the allegations made in the first information report or charge sheet taken as true do not make out any case. 7. By reading the contents of the charge sheet, it cannot be said that no offences have been made out against the petitioners. There are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 8. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, it is left open to the petitioners to challenge the order of taking cognizance by separate proceedings. ____________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J Date: 10th November, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.5773 of 2010 Date: 10th November, 2011 KL