HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.3641 of 2011 ORDER:- Petitioners herein are accused Nos.1 to 4 (A1 to A4) in the criminal case C.C.No.594 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Narsampet, Warangal District. They filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C) for quashing the said case. 2. The said CC No.594 of 2010 arises out of Crime No.103 of 2010 of PS Duggondi. The offences alleged are those punishable under Ss.448, 506, 307 and 511 IPC i.e. house trespass, criminal intimidation, attempt to murder and attempt to commit other offences. The de facto complainant therein is one Tharugula Venu and he is the second respondent herein and is the brother of one Kavya who is the wife of the first petitioner herein. The case pleaded in the charge sheet is that on the mid night of 11.06.2010 the four petitioners herein armed with knives and axes attacked the de facto complainant and his family members and threaten them with dire consequences because of family disputes. It is seen that the de facto complainant gave report to the police about this incident on 25.09.2010 i.e. with a delay of more than three months. 3. The concerned police investigated the matter and filed charge sheet for offences punishable under Ss.448, 506 and 307 IPC read with S.511 IPC. The certified copy of the charge sheet filed by the petitioners would show that the learned Magistrate however took cognizance of the case for offences punishable under Ss.452, 506 and 427 IPC read with S.34 IPC and it is seen that he deleted S.307 IPC. The learned Magistrate did not record reasons for deleting S.307 IPC. 4. It may then be noted that there is another case i.e. C.C.No.565/2010 which is also pending on the file of the JFCM Court, Narsampet. The said case arises out of Crime No.97/2010 of PS Duggondi. In that case the petitioners 1 and 2 herein i.e. Pogula Kiran Kumar and Pogula Venu Kumar are shown as A-1 and A-6, but petitioners 3 and 4 are not accused in the said case. The de facto complainant in the said C.C.No.565/2010 is Pogula Kavya who is the wife of the first petitioner herein. That case was registered for offences punishable under Ss.498-A, 323, 341 and 506 IPC and Ss.3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. There are nineteen (19) accused i.e. A-1 to A-19 in the said case and all of them have been charge sheeted for the aforesaid offences. The incidents relating to dowry harassment in the said case are said to have occurred since one year and on 23.08.2010 at Kazipet and Reballi and it was reported on 08.09.2010. 5. Admittedly the marriage of Smt. Kavya with the first petitioner is said to have taken place on 08.08.2009. Subsequently it is alleged estrangement developed between them because of alleged dowry demands and other harassment from the first petitioner and his family members. It is stated that some time prior to 12.06.2010 Smt. Kavya went to her parents house at Reballi. It is alleged that on the night of 12.06.2010 in the mid night at 12'O clock A-1 to A-19 attacked the de facto complainant’s house and her parents and made nuisance. It is then stated in the charge sheet in C.C.No.594/2010 that the matter was later on placed before the elders and a panchayat was held on 11.07.2010 at Narsampet and in that panchayat the elders directed the accused i.e. the petitioners party herein to return the dowry amount of Rs.2,50,000/- and also to pay additional amount of Rs.1,95,000/- totalling Rs.4,45,000/- and it is further stated that on the date of the panchayat a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid by the petitioners party to the parents of Smt. Kavya and still a sum of Rs.3,45,000/- was due to be paid by them (petitioners party). It is also averred in the charge sheet in C.C.No.594/2010 that the accused party have to pay that balance amount of Rs.3,45,000/- on 22.08.2010 as per the verdict of the mediators. It is alleged that instead of paying the said amount, on 23.08.2010 at 10.00 a.m. all the 19 accused in C.C.No.594/2010 went to the house of the parents of Smt. Kavya and denied their liability to pay the said amount and threatened them with dire consequences and left their house. 6. It is further averred in the said charge sheet in C.C.No.565/2010 that thereafter on 08.09.2010 at 13.00 hrs Smt. Kavya gave a written complaint/report to the police, Duggondi about the above incident and a case was registered in Crime No.97/2010 for the aforesaid offences and the said police ultimately filed charge sheet. That is registered as the above C.C.No.565/2010. 7. Sri Prabhakara Rao the learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that the incident in C.C.No.594/2010 which is said to have occurred on the night of 11.06.2010 never occurred and that the brother of Smt Kavya gave report about it on 25.09.2010 because the money which was agreed to be paid i.e. the sum of Rs.3,45,000/- was not paid to the parents of Smt.Kavya by the petitioners or the accused party in both the aforesaid cases and therefore it should be quashed. It may also be noted here that the report about the alleged incident on 11.06.2010 midnight was given to the police on 25.09.2010 by the brother of Smt Kavya i.e. with a delay of more than nine months. He therefore says that the case in C.C.No.594/2010 should be quashed as a false one as it was foisted only because of the alleged non-payment of the alleged agreed amount. He also argued that if this criminal petition is admitted and notice is given to the second respondent the matter will be settled and the case can be quashed. I am however unable to agree with this contention. 8. It may be noted that though there is a delay of more than 9 months in giving the report to the police about this incident the police have investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the case for offences under Ss.452, 506 and 427 IPC on 30.11.2010. The offence under S.452 IPC is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to seven years. Hence there cannot be any limitation. So far as the delay in giving the FIR is concerned the question whether that delay is fatal or not having regard to the plea of the petitioners has to be decided upon evidence. Then turning to the merits of the matter i.e. about the attack also, the question whether it is true or not has to be again decided on evidence. These are disputed questions of fact which cannot be gone into in these proceedings under S.482 Cr.P.C. Added to this the other C.C.No.565/2010 is pending. 9. It may also be noted that in the charge sheet which is registered as C.C.No.594/2010 the police have mentioned the offence under S.307 IPC also. The cognizance order of the learned Magistrate shows that he has deleted that offence but registered the charge sheet for offences punishable under Ss.452, 506 and 427 IPC read with S.34 IPC. It is not clear on what basis the learned Magistrate deleted S.307 IPC as no reasons are given. The matter involves various disputed questions of fact relating to the incident itself and also the settlement and payment of moneys. 10. In the above circuSmttances I am of the opinion that this petition for quashing the C.C.No.594/2010 cannot be entertained. Accordingly this petition is dismissed. 11. Parting with the matter, the learned JFCM is instructed to once again look into the offences mentioned in the charge sheet and the cognizance taken by him and also what made him to delete S.307 IPC from the case and take a decision in that behalf in accordance with law as he failed to record the reasons for deleting S.307 IPC. ______________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J 30th April 2011 CVRK