IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.6454 OF 2008 Between: E.P. Jayarajan, S/o. Krishna Nambiar ..... Petitioner – de facto complainant AND Inspector of Police, CBCID, Special Team, Hyderabad, rep. by the Inspector of Police, CBCID, Ongole, Prakasam District, rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad & another .....Respondents AND CRIMINAL M.P. No.9404 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.6454 OF 2008 Between: K. Sudhakaran, S/o. Ramuntay Mesthri ..... Petitioner – Respondent No.2 AND E.P. Jayarajan & another .....Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.6454 OF 2008 AND CRIMINAL M.P. No.9404 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.6454 OF 2008 COMMON ORDER: The Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed by the de facto complainant E.P. Jayarajan for a direction to respondent No.1 to conclude the investigation in Crime No.14 of 1995 of Chirala Railway Police Station by filing additional charge sheet under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. in S.C. No.383 of 1998 on the file of Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Ongole, Prakasam District. 2. Criminal M.P. No.9404 of 2009 is filed by respondent No.2 K. Sudhakaran seeking to vacate the interim order passed by this Court vide Criminal M.P. No.5730 of 2008 in the above criminal petition staying the proceedings in S.C. No.383 of 1998. 2. Heard both sides. 3. It is not in dispute that the matter was considered by the Supreme Court earlier and a petition filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was disposed of with liberty to the prosecution to file a fresh petition as and when material is available against any one. It is also not in dispute that W.P. No.1141 of 2002 was filed by the de facto complainant for a direction to the police to file charge sheet and the same was dismissed. Now this petition is filed almost for the same relief, as such, the same cannot be entertained. 4. However, it is open to the prosecution to take steps under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and the same is needless to mention here in view of the existing orders of the Supreme Court. 5. Obviously, the de facto complainant does not want the proceedings to go further. The offence has taken place in 1995 and on account of the attitude of the de facto complainant in filing these kinds of petitions, trial is held up for more than a decade. Hence, the de facto complainant shall not be allowed to continue to stall the proceedings any further. 7. In the circumstances, I see no ground to entertain the criminal petition, as such, the same is liable to be dismissed. 8. Therefore, the Criminal Petition is dismissed at the admission stage itself and consequently Criminal M.P. No.9404 of 2009 is allowed. __________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J November 20, 2009. PV