JUDGMENT Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, J. - This criminal petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed seeking quash of F.I.R in Crime No.433 of 2020 of Nakkapalli Police Station, Visakhapatnam District. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 3. On a report lodged by the de facto complainant, who is the 2nd respondent herein, alleging that the petitioners have attacked the injured and beat her and caused injuries to her with a lethal weapon and other weapons and also outraged her modesty, initially a case under Sections 354, 324, 506 r/w 34 IPC was registered. Subsequently, when the de facto complainant approached this Court by way of filing Writ Petition No.10609 of 2020, this Court, after considering the wound certificate that was received in the above crime, directed the Investigating Officer to add appropriate section of law based on the wound certificate dated 18.05.2020 and other evidences collected during the course of investigation and further directed to complete the investigation expeditiously and file final report before the learned jurisdictional Magistrate. After receiving the wound certificate, police have altered the section of law from 324 IPC to 326 IPC along with other sections of law for which the crime was registered and issued altered F.I.R. The said case is now under investigation. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the allegations regarding causing injuries as mentioned in the F.I.R are inconsistent with the injuries shown in the wound certificate and as such the falsity of the case of the prosecution is apparent from the said fact. He would also submit that the other allegations mentioned in the F.I.R are also false and the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case and thereby prayed to quash the F.I.R. 5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the criminal petition. He would submit that this is not a case for quash of F.I.R in view of the specific allegations mentioned in the F.I.R and also the medical evidence available in this case in the form of wound certificate and this requires trial and thereby prayed for dismissal of the petition. 6. As noticed supra, the contents of the F.I.R prima facie disclose that specific allegations are made that the petitioners have attacked the de facto complainant and beat her and caused injuries to her and also outraged her modesty. 6. As noticed supra, the contents of the F.I.R prima facie disclose that specific allegations are made that the petitioners have attacked the de facto complainant and beat her and caused injuries to her and also outraged her modesty. Whether these allegations are true or false are pure disputed question of fact which requires investigation and the truth or otherwise of the said allegations is to be ascertained during the course of investigation. The said disputed question of fact cannot be gone into by this Court, in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C, in a petition filed seeking quash of F.I.R. Similarly, the contention that the injuries mentioned in the F.I.R varies with the injuries mentioned in the wound certificate also is a valid ground to quash the F.I.R. It is a matter for appreciation of evidence by the trial Court. The plea relating to inconsistency between ocular evidence and the medical evidence, is certainly a matter relating to appreciation of evidence relating to the said evidence, which is the task of the trial Court to deal with the same and give a finding on it. At this stage, the F.I.R cannot be quashed on the said ground that there is inconsistency between the injuries mentioned in the F.I.R and the wound certificate. Therefore, all these matters are to be dealt with the trial Court if the charge sheet is filed, after recording the evidence to that effect and in the final adjudication of the said case. Therefore, in the said facts and circumstances of the case, this Court do not see any valid legal ground warranting interference of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C either to interdict the investigation or to quash the F.I.R. It is left open to the petitioner to raise his defense during the course of trial and the trial Court has to consider the said defense taken by the petitioners during the course of trial in the final adjudication of the matter and decide the case according to law. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, this Court do not see any valid ground to admit the case for hearing. 7. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, in this Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.