THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 2680 of 2010 Oral order: The petitioner states he and respondent No.4 along with others entered into a partnership in the year 2005 in the name of M/s. Shirdi Saibaba Builders, for development of 1380 Sq. yds of land at Banjara Hills. Thereafter, they entered into another partnership deed on 20.06.2007, in the name and style of M/s. East West Builders & Dvelopers, for purchase and development of land in an extent of Acs. 16.00 situated in Sy. Nos. 625 and 630, Lalgadi Malakpet village, Shameerpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, in the ratio of 40:60. While so, the petitioner states that when respondent No. 4 by misrepresenting before the registration authorities that he is managing partner of M/s. Eastern Pavilion, executed registered agreement of sale-cum-GPA with possession, he lodged a complaint against respondent No. 4, which was registered as FIR No. 175 of 2007 on the file of Medchal Police Station on 27.07.2007. As a counterblast thereto, respondent No.4 lodged a complaint against the petitioner making several allegations, inter alia stating that he was induced to become partner in M/s. Eastern Pavilion, and based on the said complaint, respondent No. 3 registered FIR No. 92 of 2007 against the petitioner on 18.08.2007. Thereafter, again in relation to partnership of M/s. Shirdi Saibaba Builders, respondent No.4 making similar allegations, lodged a complaint against the petitioner before respondent No. 3, who registered the same as FIR No. 179 dated 23.07.2008. While he is facing trial in the said cases, the petitioner states that respondent No. 4 lodged another complaint in relation to partnership of M/s. East West Builders and Developers. The petitioner states that though in the said partnership, respondent No. 4, towards his 60% share, is entitled to 27,488 Sq. yds. yet he had sold an extent of 28,011 Sq. yds. of land under registered Documents Nos. 5683 dated 21.04.2007 and 5594 dated 24.04.2007, registered in the Office of the Sub Registrar, Shameerpet, and he contends that since respondent No.4 had sold more than what he is entitled to towards his share, and as at his instance, an FIR has been registered against respondent No.4, respondent No.3 is not justified in registering the FIR in question against the petitioner based on the report lodged by respondent No.4, particularly when the allegations in the complaint are similar to that of the allegations in the two FIRs already against the petitioner at the instance of respondent No.4. This Court by order dated 10.02.2010, while ordering notice before admission, stayed the investigation of the crime in question. To vacate the stay order granted by this Court, respondent No.4 filed vacate stay petition, supported by counter-affidavit. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Home for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and the learned counsel for respondent No.4. As can be seen from the stand taken by respondent No.4 in the counter, the petitioner during his visit to USA in the month of January, 2005 is said to have given a presentation showing the broachers relating to real estate, and upon coming back to India, informed him that there exists a land of 1380 Sq. yds available for development, and induced him to buy the said land as a partner. That thereafter, he prepared a partnership in the name of M/s. Shirdi Sai Baba Builders, Vijayanagar Colony, along with four others, as partners, and sent resolution dated 05.03.2005 and requested him to pay an amount of Rs.51,32,000/- towards his share capital. As advised, respondent No.4 states that he opened a NRI account in City Bank, Begumpet and credited his share capital to the account of M/s. Shirdi Sai Baba Builders. It is the case of respondent No.4 that on coming to know that the petitioner sold the property without his knowledge and that the partnership deed was created and forged by the petitioner, he lodged a report before respondent No.3, who registered the same as FIR No. 92 of 2007, for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 406 and 506 IPC. To quash the abovesaid FIR, the petitioner filed Criminal Petition No. 5049 of 2007. Though initially this Court stayed the investigation, ultimately, by orders dated 22.07.2008, disposed of the Criminal Petition, directing the police to com0lete the investigation and file chargesheet within six months, but till date it appears, no charge sheet/final report is filed. Insofar as the present FIR is concerned, it appears that the GPA holder of respondent No.4 filed private complaint on the file of VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, against the petitioner and three others. The Hon’ble Magistrate, referred the same under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to respondent No.3, who registered the same as FIR No. 1 of 2009 against the petitioner and three others for the offences punishable under Section 468, 471, 506 r/w 120-B IPC, and the crime is under investigation. A perusal of FIR No. 92 of 2007 and FIR No. 1 of 2009, would disclose that both are registered for different offences. The first FIR is registered against the petitioner alone and the crime is still pending investigation, and while the FIR in question, is concerned, it is registered against the petitioner and three others, in relation to a different transaction, and they are for totally different offences. Though the petitioner contends that the petitioner has already sold more than what he is entitled to under the agreement, but having regard to the fact that the present FIR is registered against the petitioner and others on the allegation of forging partnership deed and using the same, indulging in criminal intimidation and criminal conspiracy, it is not proper for this Court to stay the investigation of the present FIR, particularly when the same is registered against an offence arising out of a different transaction, and has nothing to do with the crime already registered against the petitioner, the investigation of which is pending. For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition, and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 14th July, 2010 KSR