HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3274 OF 2006 DATE:29.12.2009 Between: Moturi Rama Narasimha Rao …….Petitioner And: The State of A.P through SHO, Chandanagar, Hyderabad and another ……Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3274 OF 2006 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure quashing F.I.R in Crime No.170 of 2006 dated 17.05.2006 of Chandanagar Police Station of Cyberabad relating to offences punishable under Sections 383, 420 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. On the private complaint filed by the 2nd respondent against the petitioner in the Court of IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, Cyberabad, the Magistrate referred the same to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C and report. At that stage, the petitioner filed the present petition in this Court and obtained interim stay of investigation in so far as offences punishable under Sections 383 and 506 I.P.C. only, vide order dated 11.07.2006. It is stated by both the counsel that after investigating the case, the police filed charge sheet in the lower court for offence punishable under Section 420 I.P.C only against the petitioner, since there is stay of investigation regarding offences punishable under Sections 383 and 506 I.P.C. Now on perusal of the private complaint which is First Information Report, it is evident that the 2nd respondent did not make any allegations attracting penal provisions under Sections 383 and 506 I.P.C. It is complaint of the 2nd respondent/defacto-complainant that the petitioner having obtained loan of Rs.1,00,000/- from him and executing promissory note in his favour, promised to repay the said amount in one year and in case he failed to do so, he would make the 2nd respondent also as one of the partners along with him in his cable net work business and that having not repaid the loan amount and not inducted the 2nd respondent as his partner, the petitioner cheated the 2nd respondent and deceived him in that regard. It is also further alleged that when demanded, the petitioner issued a cheque for Rs.1,00,000/- in favour of the 2nd respondent on The Vysya Bank Limited and that the said cheque was dishonoured by the bank when presented for encashment. Thus, the complaint/F.I.R attracted only one offence punishable under Section 420 I.P.C and no others. Since the police already filed charge sheet against the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 420 I.P.C, in my opinion nothing survives in the F.I.R for making any further investigation with regard to offences punishable under Sections 383 and 506 I.P.C. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing F.I.R in Crime No.170 of 2006 of Chandanagar Police Station, Cyberabad in so far as offences punishable under Sections 383 and 506 I.P.C are concerned. The respondents 1 and 2 are at liberty to prosecute the petitioner/accused for offence punishable under Section 420 I.P.C. in the Magistrate Court in Crime No.170 of 2006 of Chandanagar Police Station, Cyberabad. ___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J Date:29.12.2009 Gk. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3274 OF 2006 DATE:29.12.2009 Gk.