THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY C.R.P.No.6589 of 2007 Date of Order: 30-09-2010 Between: Prof. M.Vivekananda Murthy ..Petitioner and State through CCS Teas, Visakhapatnam rep. By P.P., High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another ..Respondents The Court made the following Order: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY Crl.P.6589 of 2007 Oral order: This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed to quash the FIR No. 4/ 2007 registered for the offence under Sections 409, 468, 477-A r/w 34 of the Indian Penal code (for short “IPC’) by the Central Crime Station, Visakhapatnam against the petitioner (A1). The petitioner was also proceeded departmentally by the 2nd respondent/complainant, which is the subject matter of challenge in W.P.No.21166 of 2007, in which he filed WPMP No.27724 of 2007 for staying the investigation and obtained stay of investigation. Aggrieved by the order passed in W.P.M.P.No.27724 of 2007 the 2nd respondent/complainant filed W.A.No.906 of 2007. It appears from the order of the learned Division Bench that the counsel representing respondent No.1/petitioner herein made a request that his client wants to withdraw WPMP No.27724 of 2007 with liberty to avail other remedies including the one before this court for grant of anticipatory bail. This Court while granting leave to the petitioner to withdrew WPMP granted liberty to avail other legal remedies including by fling fresh petition for grant of anticipatory bail and consequently disposed of the appeal by setting aside the interim order passed in WPMP No.27724 of 2007. After disposal of Writ Appeal, the present Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings inCr.No.4 of 2007. This Court while disposing of the writ appeal granted liberty to the petitioner only to file a fresh application for grant of anticipatory bail, but not to quash the proceedings. In that view of the matter, this Court by order dated 05-08-2010 while vacating the stay granted staying the investigation inCr.No.4 of 2007 called upon the petitioner to present in the Court on 19-08-2010 to show cause why necessary proceedings should not be initiated against him. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner was present on 13-08-2010 and the matter underwent three adjournments thereafter. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also learned counsel for the respondents. The complaint allegations, prima facie, disclose a cognizable offence, which necessarily has to be investigated by the police. Further, this Court stayed the investigation in WPMP, which was the subject matter of writ appeal before the Division Bench and the petitioner has withdrawn the said WPMP to avoid adverse order that may be passed by the Division Bench with a liberty to avail other remedies including by filing fresh petition for grant of anticipatory bail. When this Court expressed its opinion that it is not inclined to scuttle the investigation at the early stage, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of the court to withdraw the criminal petition. In view of the same, this Court is not inclined to go into the merits or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint. The Criminal Petition is accordingly dismissed. _________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. 30-09-2010 Murthy