inception. It is also contended that the petitioner and the defacto complainant are persons residing in the neighbourhood. If the petitioner was actually there at the place of the alleged occurrence, the defacto complainant naturally would have mentioned her name in the complaint itself, contended the learned counsel for the petitioner. Per contra, learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the statements of the complainant and another witness recorded by the Police on 07.06.2011 show the name of petitioner as one among the persons who committed the highhanded acts. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is a civil suit pending between the complainant and the petitioner's husband. Impleadment of the petitioner in the crime is to pressurize her husband to withdraw the civil case is the contention raised by the petitioner. AnnexureV is the commissioner's report submitted in the civil suit between the parties. It appears that there is a property dispute between the parties. However, the involvement of petitioner in the crime is a matter alleged by the complainant and denied by the petitioner. It can be proved only by adducing oral evidence. It is settled law that jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked to determine vexed questions of fact. Therefore, I am not inclined to quash the complaint. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner/4th accused, being a lady, may be permitted to contest the case without appearing in the court regularly. The
