HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10002 OF 2009 Date: 29-09-2010 Between: Mohd. Abdul Qadeer. --- Petitioner. And The State of A. P., Rep. By its Public Prosecutor, High court of A.P., Hyderabad and another. --- Respondents. This Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10002 OF 2009 ORDER: Though the second respondent filed private complaint in the lower court alleging offences punishable under various sections of I.P.C., the lower Court after making pre-cognizance enquiry is stated to have taken the private complaint on file for offences punishable under Sections 193 and 195 I.P.C. only and registered the same as P.R.C. No.24 of 1998 by the then II Metropolitan Magistrate Court. The case was split up against the petitioner/A-1 as he was absconding and the case was committed to the Court of Session insofar as A-2 and A-3 are concerned. It is stated that A-1 was in Gulf countries during that period pursuing his avocation and subsequently he was bedridden and hospitalized. After committal of the case, it was registered as Sessions Case No.365 of 2000 insofar as A-2 and A-3 are concerned and the IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, by judgment dated 04-10-2002 acquitted A-2 and A-3 who are the police officials, after trial. 2. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that though the petitioner/A-1 was the de-facto complainant in the previous crime No.82 of 996 of Kalapathar police station for offence punishable under Section 436 I.P.C., he did not name the second respondent as one of the culprits or suspects either in F.I.R. or in his evidence as PW.1 in Sessions Case No.14 of 1998. It is evident that the petitioner never accused A-1 as the person responsible for fire accident in his shop. It is only during investigation, the police included the second respondent as one of the accused persons in S.C. No.14 of 1998. The case against A-2 and A-3 (who are investigating officials in S.C. No.14 of 1998) ended in acquittal. 3. Further, Section 195 (1) (b) (i) Cr.P.C. stands as a bar for taking cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 193 and 195 I.P.C. at the instance of a private party. The above provision contemplates filing of complaint for those offences in writing of that Court or by such Officer of the Court as that Court may authorize in writing in that behalf or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate. In that view of the matter, taking cognizance of P.R.C.24 of 1998 against the petitioner/A-1, on a private complaint filed by the second respondent/de-facto complainant is contrary to law. 4. Hence, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the proceedings in P.R.C. No.19 of 2000 (Old P.R.C. No.24 of 1998) on the file of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, insofar as the petitioner/A-1 is concerned. _____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J. Date: 29-09-2010. DSH