C. M. R. VELU, J. ( 1 ) THE learned counsel representing the petitioner, sri K. Durga Prasad, the learned counsel representing the first respondent and Sri dhanunjay, the learned Additional Public prosecutor. ( 2 ) SRI C. M. R. Velu, the learned counsel representing the petitioner would maintain that the petitioner is a practicing Advocate at district Court, Nizamabad since 1984 and the police foisted a false case against the petitioner since he had lodged a complaint against the police to the National Human rights Commission for their illegal acts on 12-11-2001. The learned counsel also would maintain that the Head of the institution-Government Girls High School, smt. Shamsunnisa Begum-LW-5 had stated that on 6-6-2002 there was no incident at all as stated in the complaint. Even otherwise, the learned counsel would maintain that even if the allegations were to be taken into consideration, the ingredients of Section 341 of I. P. C. are not attracted at all. ( 3 ) PER contra, Sri A. Durga Prasad, the learned counsel representing the first respondent had taken this Court through the material available on record and would contend that the first respondent holding responsible office will not make such a false complaint and the conduct of the petitioner is definitely un-pardonable. ( 4 ) THE learned additional Public prosecutor would maintain that in the light of the specific allegations made against the petitioner, the proceedings cannot be quashed at this stage. ( 5 ) IT is stated by the petitioner that on 8-6-2002, respondent No. 1 -A. Sailoo, lodged a complaint to III Town Police Station against the petitioner stating that he was on invigilation duty in Government Girls High School from 29-5-2002 to 6-6-2002 for X Class supplementary examinations. On 6-6-2002, when he was at room No. 10, the petitioner came to the satd room and introduced his daughter to respondent No. 1 Lateron, the invigilator in Room No. 9 came to respondent no. 1 and introduced the petitioner s daughter as his student and a good dancer. After half an hour, again he came and wanted to help the daughter of the petitioner, to which, respondent No. 1 refused. On the next day i. e. , on 7-6-2002 while respondent No. 1 was proceeding with his friends, the petitioner who was going by his car stopped the car and enquired respondent No. 1 name and place of work. On the next day i. e. , on 7-6-2002 while respondent No. 1 was proceeding with his friends, the petitioner who was going by his car stopped the car and enquired respondent No. 1 name and place of work. Respondent No. 1 refused to disclose. There upon, the petitioner caught hold of his shirt and abused him using the English word eunuch . On the basis of the said complaint, the S. I. , III Town Police Station registered crime No. 63 of 2002 under Sections 341, 290 and 506 I. P. C. The S. H. O. filed charge sheet on 15-7-2002. ( 6 ) ON the strength of the allegations made in the complaint, if carefully scrutinized, the offences under Sections 290 and 506 I. P. C. are prima facie attracted, but definitely not the ingredients under Section 341 of I. P. C. It is needless to say that the truth or otherwise of the other allegations made may have to be decided on evidence, which may be adduced by the prosecution and the defence as the case may be. Merely on the ground of the alleged statement made by Shamsunnisa Begum- lw-5, the same cannot be quashed at this stage and accordingly, the criminal petition is partly allowed so far as it relates to the offence under Section 341 of I. P. C. is concerned. The other proceedings in relation to Sections 290 and 506 of I. P. C. in c. C. No. 747 of 2002 on thefile of the Additional judicial First Class Magistrate, Nizamabad to be further proceeded with in accordance with law. ( 7 ) CRIMINAL petition is partly allowed. It is needless to say that the trial Court may have to proceed with in accordance with law basing on the evidence. Which may be adduced by the parties being un-influenced by any of the observations made in this criminal petition.