ORDER : 1. The present petition, under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, is filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No. 53 of 2006 of Makloor Police Station, Nizamabad District. 2. One Gogula Mallaiah filed a complaint before the Sub-Inspector of Police, Makloor Police Station, Nizamabad District, alleging that on 15-03-2006 at about 2.00 p.m. his son, by name Mahipal, along with some other children, went out to play Holi, and when his son did not return home till evening, he left in search of his son, and traced his body at about 11.00 a.m. on 16-03-2006 in a water pit dug by petitioner No. 2 in the land belonging to petitioner No. 1. Based on the said complaint, a case in Crime No. 53 of 2006 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. was registered, and later on, based on the statements of witnesses recorded and the letter of the 2nd respondent, the Section of law was altered to 304(ii) IPC. 3. The petitioners herein seek quashing of the said proceedings on the ground that they have nothing to do with the alleged offence, and that the contents of the complaint do not make out any offence much less offence under Section 304(ii) IPC to proceed against them. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The apex Court in catena of cases laid down the law indicating the circumstances under which the criminal proceedings can be quashed viz., to give effect to an order under the Code, to prevent abuse of the process of Court, and the otherwise secure the ends of justice etc. The Apex Court in State of H.P. v. Prithi Chand. (1996) 2 SCC 37 , considered the extent and scope of power of High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution as well as Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code to quash the FIR/Charge sheet/complaint. While observing that at the stage of investigation it is not the function of the Court to weigh the merits of the prosecution case and that if the record prima facie supports the commission of offence, the power to quash FIR cannot be exercised, the apex Court held as follows: “It is thus settled law that the exercise of inherent power of the High Court in an exceptional one. Great care should be taken by the High Court before embarking to scrutinize the FIR/Charge sheet/complaint. Great care should be taken by the High Court before embarking to scrutinize the FIR/Charge sheet/complaint. In deciding whether the case is rarest of rare cases to scuttle the prosecution in its inception, it first has to get into the grip of the matter whether the allegations constitute the offence. It must be remembered that FIR is only an initiation move to the machinery and to investigate into cognizable offence. After the investigate is conducted and the charge sheet is laid the prosecution produces the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Code in support of the charge sheet at that stage it is not the function of the Court to weight the pros and cons of the prosecution case or to consider necessity of strict compliance of the provisions which are considered mandatory and its effect of non-compliance…………” 6. In the instant case, specific allegations are attributed against the petitioners herein stating that while searching, Gogula Mallaiah traced the body of his son in a water pit dug by petitioner No. 2 in the land belonging to petitioner No. 1 and till date the investigation is not completed and charge sheet is not filed. Be that as it may, the involvement or otherwise of the petitioners in the alleged incident cannot be decided by this Court, and it is for the Investigating Officer to investigate and file charge sheet. Unless and until the investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed, it cannot be said that the petitioners are not involved in the incident. Hence, merely based on the oral assertions and arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it is not proper for this Court to interfere in the matter and quash the proceedings at this stage. 7. The criminal petition fails and accordingly, the same is dismissed.