THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.9250 OF 2010 Dated 22nd April, 2010 Between: A.Gangadhar …Petitioner And The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise and another …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Praveen Kumar Veerjala Counsel for respondent No.1: AGP for Prohibition & Excise Counsel for respondent No.2: AGP for Home The Court made the following ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Certiorari to quash FIR No.57 of 2010 on the file of respondent No.2. The petitioner is accused No.3 in Crime No.57 of 2010 of respondent No.2-Police Station. Initially, the said crime was registered on 14.04.2010 against two persons by name Banavath Linga and Banavath Rupla. It is stated in the FIR that on interrogation, accused No.1 confessed that he in collaboration with accused No.2 have been resorting to manufacture of I.D liquor by procuring jaggery and alum from accused No.2 for his wrongful gain. The remand case diary was submitted by the police before the jurisdictional Magistrate on 15.04.2010. Later on, a further remand report was filed by the police on 17.04.2010, wherein it is stated that during interrogation of accused No.2, he admitted to have committed the offence and further disclosed that he brought the jaggery and the alum from the petitioner and that the I.D liquor manufactured out of the said jaggery and alum was sold and the sale proceeds were shared by him and accused No.1 in equal proportion and that later, he and accused No.3 shared the money from out of his share. It is further mentioned that accused No.2 is stated to have revealed that the petitioner is encouraging him to sell more quantity of jaggery and alum to others for his wrongful gain. The petitioner was therefore added as accused No.3 to the criminal case. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is innocent and that he was implicated in the case deliberately. In my opinion, this Court cannot pronounce upon the purported innocence of the petitioner at this stage. It is for the police to investigate into the truth or otherwise of the accusations and submit appropriate report after completion of the investigation before the jurisdictional Magistrate. The law is well settled that where the accusations made constitute commission of an offence, this Court would not probe into the correctness or otherwise of such allegations in a proceeding filed for quashing of the criminal proceedings. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the criminal proceedings at this stage. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP No.11936 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 22nd April, 2010 vrn