JUDGMENT R.Raghunandan Rao, J. - As these two Criminal Petitions have been filed for quashing interconnected complaints, it would be appropriate to dispose of both these petitions together. 2. The background in which these petitions have been filed is as follows: A complaint was filed against the petitioners in Crl.P.No.9921 of 2022 for offences under Sections 341, 384, 307 r/w 34 of I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(v) of SC ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. This complaint was registered as Crime No.416 of 2022, on the file of Pedavegi Police Station, East Godavari District on 05.12.2022. 3. The complaint in this case was that the petitioners in Crl.P.No.9921 of 2022 had assaulted the de facto complainant and others with an intention to kill the de facto complainant on 04.12.2022. The petitioners are also said to have abused the de facto complainant in the name of his community. 4. Another complaint was given against the petitioners in Crl.P.No.9914 of 2022, for offences under Sections 143, 448, 307, 324, 323, 506 (2) r/w 149 of I.P.C., on 05.12.2022 which was registered as Crime No.638 of 2022 in Eluru II Town Police Station, Eluru District. The allegation in this complaint was that the persons who had been injured in the earlier incident were being treated in a hospital when the petitioners in Crl.P.No.9914 of 2022 had come to the hospital and attacked the injured persons with a view to kill them. 5. The petitioners have approached this Court for quashing both the complaints on the ground that the said complaints are false. Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Sai Surya Teja in both the petitions, would submit that it was the petitioners who had been attacked by the de facto complainant and others in both the cases and in fact one of the petitioners in the case had received grievous injuries requiring stitches on the scalp of the said person. Sri Posani Venkateswarlu would submit that a person who required stitches on his scalp was clearly in no position to have attacked anybody on that day and this solitary fact is sufficient to show that both the complaints are false complaints made against the petitioners on account of political differences between the group of the de facto complainant and the petitioners herein. Sri Posani Venkateswarlu would rely upon the Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Rayavarapu Punnayya and Another (1976) 4 SCC 382 , Hari Singh vs. Sukhbir Singh and Others (1988) 4 SCC 551 and Hema Mishra vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors (2014) 4 SCC 453 . The learned Senior Counsel has also relied upon a Judgment of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in K.Mallesham vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (1998) 5 ALD 120 . 6. In the present case, the matter is still at the stage of investigation and a question of whether the offences alleged in the First Information Reports had been made out or not can only be determined upon a proper investigation in the matter. However, the fact that one of the petitioners himself had suffered an injury on the scalp on account of being beaten on the head, cannot be put aside. 7. The provisions of Section 41A of Cr.P.C are not available in the present case on account of the provisions of Section 307 of I.P.C being included in the First Information Report. However, this Court would caution the investigating officer to proceed with due care while contemplating any arrest of the petitioners herein, in the course of investigation. Reasons are to be recorded before any arrests are undertaken in the matter. 8. Subject to the aforesaid observations, investigation in the case may go on. 9. Accordingly, these Criminal Petitions are disposed of. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.