IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENT FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.5256 OF 2009 BETWEEN: Siddi Vinayaka Automobiles and others …. Petitioners And M/s.Bhageriya Financial & Capital Services Limited and another …. Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU CRIMINAL PETITON No.5256 OF 2009 ORDER: Originally, the 1st respondent / complainant gave report in crime No.109 of 2004 in Kachiguda Police Station of Hyderabad against A1 to A3 alleging offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 IPC. In fact, it was a private complaint filed by the 1st respondent before the Magistrate which complaint was referred by the Magistrate to the police for investigation under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. After investigation, the police filed final report, dated 30-07-2004 before the Magistrate referring the case as one of civil nature. Thereupon, the 1st respondent filed protest petition before the VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, who after making enquiry dismissed the protest petition and recorded final report filed by the police. The 1st respondent took the matter by way of a revision petition in Crl.R.P. No.19 of 2006 before the IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. The IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge by order dated 05-05- 2006 allowed the revision petition and directed the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offences and proceed to dispose of the same according to law. As against the said revisional order, A1 to A3 filed Criminal Revision Case No.1670 of 2007 in this Court. This Court by its judgment dated 10-03-2008 allowed the criminal revision case No.1670 of 2007 and restored the order of dismissal of protest petition passed by the Magistrate. Thus, the matter has become final between the parties. The subject matter is relating to sale of a two wheeler to a third party. 2. Suppressing the order dated 10-03-2008 in Crl.R.C. No.1670 of 2007 passed by this Court, the 1st respondent again filed another private complaint in the lower Court against A1 to A4 alleging offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 468 IPC. A2 is the Managing Director, A3 is General Manager and A4 is Sales Manager of A1 Company. In view of the previous order in Criminal Revision Case No.1670 of 2007 passed by this Court, which has become final, filing of second complaint on the basis of the same cause of action as before, is nothing but abuse of process of law. 3. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the proceedings in C.C. No.1 of 2009 on the file of the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. ___________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU, J February 24, 2011. KTL