THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.3505 OF 2008 ORDER: This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short ‘Cr.P.C’), seeking to quash the F.I.R in Crime No.30 of 2008 of Chagalamarri Police Station, Kurnool District. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners has pleaded that immediately after the attack on them by the 2nd respondent herein, the petitioners themselves went to the police-station and lodged the complaint. Since the police have refused to receive the complaint they went to the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Allagadda, Kurnool District and lodged the complaint. Thereupon, on the directions of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Allagadda, Kurnool District, a case in Crime No.31 of 2008 was registered against the 2nd respondent herein and others by the Chagalamarri police. 3. He further pleaded that the allegations made in the complaint against the petitioners herein does not disclose any offence and therefore, the F.I.R in Cr.No:30 of 2008 is liable to be quashed. 4. None appeared on behalf of the respondent No.2. 5. Both the parties are making allegations against each other in their respective complaints and both the cases in Crime Nos.30 of 2008 and 31 of 2008 are the case and counter case. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that there was a delay of 18 days in lodging the complaint by respondent No:2 in Crime No.30 of 2008. 7. As per the allegations made in the complaint in Crime No.30 of 2008and 31 of 2008, the alleged incident took place on 03.04.2008 at 07.00 A.M. 8. It is true that the incident has taken place on 03.04.2008 and the complaint was registered in Crime No.30 of 2008 on 21.04.2008. On the other hand, the complaint filed by the petitioners herein in the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Allagadda, was also registered on the same day i.e. Crime No.31 of 2008 of Chagallamarri police station. 9. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that due to the delay in giving the complaint by the 2nd respondent, the allegations cannot be said as true and therefore, the F.I.R in Cr.No:30 of 2008 is liable to be quashed. 10. The truth or otherwise of the allegations in the complaint given by the 2nd respondent and the question of delay in lodging the complaint, can only be decided after a full fledged trial in the criminal case, but not at this stage of the proceedings. 11. Therefore, I hold that it is not just and proper to quash the F.I.R in Cr.No:30 of 2008 and this criminal petition is devoid of merits and the same is thereby liable to be dismissed. 12. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed. No costs. 13. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner also seeks a direction to the police not to arrest the petitioners. But, in view of the investigation pending in Cr.No:30 of 2008, the contention of the learned counsel cannot be acceded. ______________________ P. DURGA PRASAD, J March, 23, 2011 SP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.3505 OF 2008 Between: Bonthala Chenchanna Bonthala Hussainamma .....PETITIONERS AND State of Andhra Pradesh. Rep by its Public Prosecutor High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and Smt. M. Ramalakshamma ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.3505 OF 2008 March 23, 2011 SP