HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.736 OF 2007 DATE:20-08-2010 BETWEEN G.P.Sanghi & others …Petitioners AND The State of A.P., Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad & Another. …Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.736 OF 2007 ORDER: This petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed to quash the F.I.R.No.838 of 2006 pending on the file of Saifabad Police Station, Hyderabad. It is alleged that against the second respondent-complainant several cases were filed for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and that they have ended in conviction and the appeals filed by him were also dismissed. While the said cases were pending trial, the second respondent-complainant resorted to file the present complaint as a counter-blast against the petitioners and therefore, the present case falls under illustration No.7 enumerated by the Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (AIR 1992 SC 604). Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays to quash the impugned proceedings. The complaint filed under Section 190 and 200 Cr.P.C. before the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad discloses that on 8.11.2006 after completion of examination in connection with a case pending before the VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, the second respondent-complainant along with his driver was proceeding to his house in the car. Suddenly, the car was stopped nearby Babukhan Estate, Saifabad, Hyderabad by the petitioners-A.1 to A.3 and their associates and later the petitioners threatened the complainant to open the door of the vehicle and then entered into the vehicle and wrongfully restrained him for one hour with a warning to give certain huge amount instead of facing problems with false cases. When the complainant denied and refused their demand, the petitioners threatened the complainant with dire consequences and abused him in filthy language. The entire episode was witnessed by the driver of the complainant and the complainant is also having ample evidence to prove the guilt of the petitioners. On referring the complaint, the police of Saifabad Police Station registered a crime for the offence under Sections 384, 342, 506 I.P.C. and 156 Cr.P.C. and took up investigation. Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the first petitioner is no more and that the petitioners 2 and 3, who are husband and wife have been falsely implicated in the case to wreck vengeance and therefore, the impugned proceedings cannot be allowed to continue. Further the second respondent-complainant filed Criminal Petition Nos.5593, 5600 and 5601 of 2006 seeking stay of the criminal cases pending against him until the other cases transferred by the Hon’ble Supreme Court are also proceeded with, which were dismissed by this Court on 18.12.2006. On dismissal of the same, the complainant resorted to file the present false complaint against the petitioners on the same day i.e. on 18.12.2006. Since the complaint under Section 190 and 200 Cr.P.C. was prepared itself on 16.12.2006 and was filed on 18.12.2006, it cannot be presumed that the complainant was aware of the dismissal of the criminal petitions by this Court on even date and falsely filed the present complaint within hours. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted. Further the petitioners have not taken any steps to serve the complainant-second respondent, in whose absence, the complaint cannot be quashed. The complaint allegations clearly discloses about the petitioners restraining the complainant while he was going to his house and it is specifically alleged that they have threatened the complainant with dire consequences, for which, the police are under obligation to investigate into the matter. Having regard to the same, this Court is of the view that the present case will not fall under any of the illustrations enumerated by the Apex Court in the case of Bhajan Lal (referred to supra). The criminal petition is accordingly dismissed. However, on petitioners 2 and 3 appearing before the investigating agency and on each of them executing a personal bond for Rs.5,000/- for the likesum each to the satisfaction of the investigating officer, and on their giving an undertaking that they will cooperate with the investigation and appear on the relevant dates, they should not be arrested pending investigation. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. AUGUST 20, 2010 Tsr.