THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY Crl.P.No.2868/2007 Dt.21-10-2010 1. Dr. Jasti Rama Chander Rao and another. ..Petitioners/A-1 and A-3 V. 1. Dr. P.V. Krishna and another ..Respondents The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY Crl.P.No.2868/2007 ORAL ORDER This petition under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C., is filed to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners, who are arrayed as A-1 and A- 3, in CC No. 176/2006 on the file of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, for the offences under Sec.448, 457, 380 and 427 IPC. On filing a complaint by the first respondent-defacto complainant against the accused, numbering 15, under Sec. 200 r/w 156(3) Cr.P.C., for the offences under Section 448, 457, 380, 427, 506,509,147,148 r/w 149 IPC, before the V Metropolitan Magistrate, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, the learned Magistrate forwarded the said complaint to the Police Station, Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar. On receipt of the said complaint, the police registered a case in Cr.No.550/2001 and investigated into the crime. After due investigation, the police filed a report praying the court to close the case for the alleged offences by treating it as civil nature. On filing final report, learned Magistrate by docket order dt. 5-1-2004 adjourned the matter to 12-1-2004 on the ground that the defacto complainant already filed protest petition and is pending. After hearing the defacto-complainant and the accused, the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad by order dt. 7-8-2004 accepted the final report as the case is of civil nature. On accepting the final report, the defacto complainant filed Crl.M.P.No.3199/2004 under Sec. 91 Cr.P.C., to call for the statements of four witnesses as stated in the petition from Central Crime Station, Hyderabad along with photographs taken in Cr.No.550/2001 of P.S. Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar /CID. Learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad by order dt. 25-8-2004 dismissed the petition holding that final report filed in Cr.No.550/2001 has already been accepted on 7-8-2004 and other criminal miscellaneous petitions, which were pending before this court were already transmitted to V Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad on the point of jurisdiction and the petition is not at all maintainable to call for any statements from the CCS authorities. While so, on defacto-complainant filing Crl.M.P.No.6359/2004 to take the complaint on file after recording sworn statement of the petitioner and other witnesses, learned III Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad after recording the sworn statement of the petitioner and two other witnesses took the case on file against A-1 to A-8, A-11 and A- 12 only for the offences under Sec.448,457, 380,427 IPC, by order dt. 24-1- 2006. Sri C.B. Rama Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners/A-1 and A-3 contends that once the Magistrate accepted the final report filed by the prosecution, again taking complaint and recording sworn statements amounts to reviewing the order passed earlier, which the Magistrate has no jurisdiction, and therefore, the proceedings initiated against the petitioners are liable to the quashed. Sri C.V.R. Rudra Prasad, learned counsel for the first respondent contends that petition filed under Sec. 91 Cr.P.C., was dismissed on the ground that final report filed by CID Police has been accepted and other criminal miscellaneous petitions, which were pending were transmitted to V Metropolitan Magistrate and therefore III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate is competent to take cognizance of the offence in view of the protest petition and sworn statements of the defacto complainant and two others. Admittedly, in the case on hand, on police filing a final report dt. 18-11-2003, learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad after serving notice on the complainant, who filed protest petition and after hearing the accused and also counsel for the defacto complainant, by order dt. 7-8- 2004 accepted the final report and issued proceedings accordingly. Added to the same, when an application under Sec. 91 Cr.P.C., is filed to call for the statements of the witnesses from the authorities of CCS, the same was also dismissed. In that view of the matter, the Magistrate taking cognizance of the case against the petitioners and others on a petition filed under Sec. 159 r/w 202 Cr.P.C., does not arise. Section 362 Cr.P.C., prohibits the Court when it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case to alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error. The facts, as stated above, depict that final report has been accepted by the Magistrate, after considering the protest petition filed by the defacto complaint, by a reasoned order. Taking the case on file, on filing petition under Sec. 159 r/w 202 Cr.P.C., after recording sworn statements of the defacto complainant and two other witnesses amounts to reviewing the order passed, earlier, by the Magistrate, which he has no jurisdiction, and the same is to be corrected either in revision or in appeal, if any preferred by the person aggrieved. Therefore, continuing the proceedings initiated against the petitioners is an abuse of process of law and they liable to be quashed. The Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings initiated against the petitioners/A-1 and A-3 in CC No.176/2006 on the file of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad are quashed. ______________ A.GOPAL REDDY,J Dt.21-10-2010 kmr