HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION No.209 of 2010 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the proceedings initiated against them in C.C.No.455 of 2006 on the file of the Special Mobile Magistrate, Guntur, taken on file for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 447, 474, 193, 209 read with Section 34 of IPC. When the matter came up for hearing on 18.02.2011, at the request of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the matter was posted to 22.02.2011. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners was absent on that day and, having heard the other side and perused the record, this Court passed the following order: “Petitioners approach this Court seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.455 of 2006 on the file of the Special Mobile Magistrate, Guntur, whereby they are facing charge for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 447, 474, 192, 209 of IPC read with 34 of IPC. Petitioners’ counsel absent. Respondent’s counsel present. On perusal of the material on record, this Court is of the view that since the trial has already been commenced and the witnesses were also examined and 313 Cr.P.C. questioning also completed on 13.10.2006, continuation of stay will cause prejudice to the trial. Hence, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. The miscellaneous petitions, if any, filed along with the criminal petition shall stand closed.” Subsequently, on a petition in Crl.P.M.P.No.3507 of 2011 filed by the petitioners, by an order dated 21.04.2011, this Court restored the criminal petition and posted it under the caption ‘for orders’ on 28.04.2011. Even then, neither the learned counsel for the petitioners was present nor there was any representation on his behalf. Hence, this Court posted the matter to 08.08.2011 under the caption ‘for dismissal’. When the matter was called on 26.08.2011, as there was no representation for the petitioners, this Court posted the matter to 29.08.2011 under the same caption. Even on the subsequent date of hearing i.e., 13.09.2011, the learned counsel for the petitioners was absent and hence this Court passed an oral order dismissing the criminal petition for default and, after some time, the learned counsel appeared before this Court and requested to recall the order and considering his request, this Court posted the matter to today at 2.15 p.m. ‘for orders’. When the matter is taken up for hearing today, the learned counsel submitted that he is having some difficulty in arguing the matter, since the earlier order was passed by this Court considering the material on record. Hence, he requested the Court to post the matter before some other Court. It is pertinent to note that after restoration of the petition, the learned counsel has not raised the said ground. Even on 13.09.2011 when this Court passed an order dismissing the criminal petition for non prosecution, he requested the Court to post the matter on 14.09.2011 without raising the said ground. It clearly indicates that the learned counsel is intending to drag on the matter on one pretext or other. Further, as the matter is pending before the Special Mobile Magistrate, Guntur, since the year 2006, this Court expressed its view that this Court is not inclined to transfer the petition to some other Court and directed the learned counsel to argue the matter. Immediately, the learned counsel submitted that if this Court is not inclined to transfer the petition to some other Court, he would withdraw the Vakalat and instruct his client to engage some other counsel, which clearly shows that the learned counsel is not intending to cooperate with the Court to pass a final order on merits. Hence, the said request is also rejected. The 2nd respondent filed a detailed counter. This Court is of the view that the same can be reproduced hereunder for better appreciation and adjudication of the criminal petition: “It is submitted that originally a private complaint was filed which was referred to police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The police registered a case in Cr.No.114 of 1999 for offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474, 103 and 201 IPC. The police investigated into the matter and filed the charge sheet. The gist of the allegations in the charge sheet is that one Dr.V.S.V. Ramesh is absolute owner of Padmavathi Building situated at Koritapadu, Guntur District. A.1 took the ground floor of the building on lease from the respondent, who is the Power of Attorney Holder of Dr.V.S.V.Ramesh, in the year 1988 agreeing to pay monthly rent of Rs.7,000/-, representing that she is having dealership in Automobiles. It is mentioned that A.1 paid rent up to February 1994 and subsequently failed to pay the same but continuing to be in possession of the said premises till now. It is submitted that the son of the respondent herein got issued a notice u/Sec.106 of Transfer of Property Act to A.1 and subsequently filed O.S.No.142 of 1994 for recovery of arrears of rent. At that time, A.1 brought into existence a letter dated 8.3.1994 with the help of A.2 purporting to have been executed by L.W.1 as if L.W.1 sold the property to A.2 and A.1 paying the rents to A.2. It is thus alleged that the accused fabricated a letter dated 8.3.2004 and used the same in the proceedings. It is submitted that the said case was taken on file as C.C.No.474 of 2009 on the file of the V Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur. Then, the accused filed C.F.R.No.1776 of 2000 for discharge on the ground that the matter is civil in nature and the Court should not proceed till disposal of the civil case. The learned Magistrate dismissed the said application. Against the said order, the accused filed Crl.R.P.No.50 of 2000 before the III Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur. The learned Judge by his judgment dated 18.8.2000 allowed the revision. Aggrieved by the same, the informant represented by his G.P.A. i.e., the respondent herein, filed Crl.R.C.No.1193 of 2000 before the Hon’ble High Court. The Hon’ble High Court by its order dated 5.9.2005 held that the question of continuing the stay of all proceedings in C.C.No.474 of 2000 does not arise as the civil suit was disposed of. The Hon’ble Court further held that the order of the Sessions Judge does not hold good any more. Thereafter, the case was renumbered as C.C.No.455 of 2006. It is submitted that thereafter the trial commenced and all the material witnesses were examined and even 313 Cr.P.C. examination is over on 30.10.2006. Thereafter, an application was filed by the prosecution for cross examination of hand writing expert. The said application was dismissed by the learned Magistrate. Thereafter, the informant filed a revision before the learned Magistrate which was allowed without hearing the accused. Aggrieved by the same, one of the accused filed Crl.R.C.No.51 of 2007 before the Hon’ble Court and the Hon’ble Court by its order dated 3.12.2007 allowed the revision, remitted the matter to the learned Sessions Court for disposal after hearing both sides. Both the parties were directed to appear before the Court on 29.12.2007. It is submitted that for some reason or the other, the matter was getting adjourned from time to time and ultimately on 5.1.2010 the cross examination was done. After the cross examination is over and when the case is posted for arguments, the present application for quashing of proceedings has been filed before the Hon’ble Court. The present petition is filed again challenging the merits of the case stating that the letter dated 8.3.1994 cannot be subject matter of criminal case as the very letter is also part of subject matter of civil case. It is stated in the petition that the matter is purely civil in nature and the continuation of criminal proceedings is an abuse of process of Court. It is submitted that the plea which has been taken now has also been urged earlier. Now, the entire trial is over and the case is posted for arguments. The calendar case is of the year 1999 and the same has been renumbered in the year 2006 as C.C.No.455 of 2006. Therefore, the question of quashing the proceedings, 12 years after filing of charge sheet, does not arise. The grounds which are urged now can also be argued in C.C.No.455 of 2006. The present application is filed only with a view to drag the matter and keep the proceedings pending. It is, therefore, prayed that the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the criminal petition as there are no merits in it. It is further prayed that the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to vacate the interim stay granted on 12.1.2010 in Crl.P.No.209 of 2010 and accordingly dismiss the criminal petition.” The petitioners have not ventured to file any rejoinder to the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent. But a perusal of the said counter affidavit and the entire record clearly indicates that the trial in the case has already been completed and 313 Cr.P.C. examination is also over and the matter is posted for arguments. At this stage, the present criminal petition is filed only with an intention to drag on the proceedings and further the trial Court can appreciate the evidence already adduced by the prosecution and also the evidence elicited by the defence. The crime connected with C.C.No.455 of 2006 on the file of the Special Mobile Magistrate, Guntur, was registered in the year 1999. Hence, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed and the trial Court is hereby directed to dispose of the calendar case within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, filed along with the criminal petition shall stand closed. _________________ RAJA ELANGO, J 14th September, 2011 cbs HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO Criminal Petition No.209 of 2010 (Dismissed) 14th September, 2011 cbs