IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICIATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH, AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE THIRTIEETH DAY OF NOVEMBER THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.P.No.10959 OF 2010 Between:- Adinarayana …Petitioner A n d The Sub Inspector of Police, Vanguru Police Station, Mahabubnagar District and another. …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.P.No.10959 OF 2010 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing the F.I.R against the petitioner/A-6 in Cr.No.122 of 2010 of Vanguru Police Station, Mahabubnagar District. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent- State. Perused the record. 3. Based on the report of the Sub-Inspector of Police Vanguru Police Station, a case in Cr.No.122 of 2010 was registered against the petitioner and others for the offence under Section 8(b) read with Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. As per the allegations contained in the report of the complainant, the petitioner and others were found cultivating ganja in Sy.No.256 of Shantigudem village of Vanguru Mandal. It is further alleged that after receiving the report, the Inspector of Police secured the presence of two mediators and got the illegal cultivation of ganja photographed and it was found that the ganja plants were cultivated by mixing with other crops like cotton and red gram. It is also alleged that 50 ganja plants from the land of petitioner/A-6 were plucked out besides other ganja plants from other accused. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is not having any land in Sy.No.256 and he is having land in Sy.No.256/7/1 an extent of Ac.2-00, as per the certificate issued by the Tahasildar. In F.I.R, survey number is mentioned as 256 without mentioning the sub-division number. 5. The question as to whether or not the petitioner is having any land in Sy.No.256, is a matter to be considered during the course of investigation, but not at this stage. 6. Having regard to the gravity of the nature of the offence alleged, it is considered not a fit case to quash further investigation in Cr.No.122 of 2010. It is well settled principle of law that the inherent powers of the Court have to be exercised with care, caution and circumspection and they cannot be invoked to thwart further investigation into the F.I.R, that too at the threshold stage and especially where the complaint discloses specific allegations prima facie attracting the ingredients of the offences alleged. 7. There are no valid or sufficient grounds to quash further investigation in Cr.No.122 of 2010 of Vanguru Police Station, Mahabubnagar District. 8. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. _____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 30th November, 2010 Lrkm.