THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.5303 OF 2011 ORDER: 1 Heard Sri N. Siva Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 2 Petitioners herein are said to be accused 2, 15 and 22 in Cr.No.39 of 2011 of Kotananduru P.S. in East Godavari District registered for the offences punishable under section 3(1)(X) of S.Cs & S.Ts (POA) Act, 1989 and Section 324 r/w 34 of IPC. They filed the present petition to quash the FIR in the said case. 3 Sri Siva Reddy the learned counsel for the petitioners invited my attention to the FIR given by one Katam Yesu and argued that the names of these petitioners are not mentioned in the FIR at all and their presence is also not spoken to at the place of the incident and, therefore, there is every ground to quash the said F.I.R. It is seen that the petitioners’ counsel himself has fairly filed the Remand Case Diary through which some of the accused were sent to judicial custody. The said remand report shows that the de facto complainant Katam Yesu has given a detailed statement before the investigating officer naming all the 30 accused and his statement shows that he gave the names of the present petitioners also. 4 The argument of the petitioners’ counsel is that though the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the witnesses is given in detail that should be discarded by this court going by the contents of the FIR, which do not contain the names of the petitioners. It may be noted that the FIR is not be all and end all and the investigation may disclose that some others also involved. In other words, this court is now called upon to decide whether the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the de facto complainant is true or the FIR is true. This question can be decided only on evidence but not in this petition. As matter stands, the FIR and the copy of the remand case diary filed by the petitioners disclose the offences against these petitioners also. Accordingly this petition is dismissed at the admission stage. 5 In the circumstances of this case, the concerned investigating officer is directed to strictly keep in view Section 41 of Cr.P.C. before taking a decision regarding the arrest of these petitioners. ------------- 06.07.2011 Kvsn