PETITIONERS ^ RESPONDENTS :s l.«< FBILASPUR Writ Petition No. 1236 of 2001 1. Akhilesh Kumar Maurya son of Shri Rajpati Maurya aged about 32 years. 2. Rajpati Maurya son of late Chhotayee Maurya, aged about 63 years. 3. Smt. Chandravati Devi W/o Shri Rajfiati Maurya, aged about 59 years. All residents of Harbaspur Village and Post P.S. Buxa District Jaunpur, Uttar Pradesh (presently residents LIG II- 2512,^ Housing Board Colony Industrial Area, Bhilai, Durg District (Clihatfisgarh). 4. Awadhesh Kumar son of Shri Devendra Nafh aged about45 years, occupation Advocate R'o Samashpur Village, Khaparaha Bazar, P.0., P.S. Sikarara District Jaunpur Uttai- Pradesh. VERSUS 1. State ofChhattisgarh through Home Secretary, Govt. of C.G."(Seeretariat), Raipur(CG). 2. State of Andhra Pradesh through Home Secretary, Go'\'t. of Andhra Pradesh (Secretariat), Hyderabad (A.P.), 3. Superintendent ofPolice Durg District, Clihattisgarh. 4. Supermtendent of Poliee Ranga Reddy District Andlira Pradesh. 5. S.H.O. Police Station Jamul Thana, Housmg Board Colony, Industrial Area, Bhilai, Durg District, Chhattisgarh. 6. S.H.O. Police Station Nacharain, Ranga Reddy Distriet, Andhra Pradesh. 7. Addl. Judicial Magistrate First Class, East & North, Kothapet, Saroomagar, Raiiga Reddy District, Andhra Pradesh. 8. Smt. Madhu Maurya W/b Akhilesh Kumar, Maurya, a ged about 27 years, Daughter of Sharada Prasad Maiuya, resident of Kurauna Village, P.0. & P.S. Ugapur (Aurai), Sant Ravidas Nagar Distdct Uttar Pradesh (Presehtlv residmg on rent at H. No. 1-221, PSot No. 58, Rajeeva Nagar; P.S. NacUaram, Ranga ReddyDistrict (Andhra Pradesh). (WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CQNSTITLTION OF IMDIA) (SS: Hon'Me Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) JPresent SwAiW^11— Slri-iM.D. Dhote, AdvocateforthepetitioneTs. ^hriVmayHari^DeputyAdvocateGeBeTalfortheState. ""u^ "^•t. •;..v 1. 2. 3. 4. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 5 day ofJanaary, VVith the consent ofthe parties, the matter is taken up for heariag finally. The petitioners have filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Crimmal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') seeking quashing ofF.I.R.. In the facts ofthe present case, flie petitioners iiave filed a Criminal Petition under Section 482 ofthe Cr.P.C. being Crimmal Petition No. 5478/98 inthe High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, seeking quashiiig of F.I.R.. The High CoUrt of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, by order dated 18.07.2000 (Aimexure P/14), dismissed the petition on the ground that the application to quash the First Information Report was not maintamable m law. The petitioners have farther preferred a Writ Petition also in the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad under Article 226 offhe Constitution oflndia, being W.P. No. 13168/2000. The said petition was also dismissed on 21.07.2000 (Amiexure P/16), on merit, holding that the truth or othenvise ofthe allegations in fhe complaint cannot he the subject matter of scrutiny at that stage. The case was not made out for mterference by the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, thus, the petition was dismissed. After dismissal of the above stated petitions by the High Court of Judicatiire ofAndhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, the petitioners have filed this petition under Article 226 of tlie Constitution of India read wilfa Section 482 offhe Cr.P.C. seeking the same reliefi.e. quashing ofF.I.R. and iii the altemative, to transfer the case arising from Crinie No: 102/98, registered by P.S. Nacharam, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad, to the competent court i.e. District Court, Durg (Chhattisgarh). Leamed counsel appearing for fhe petitioners submits that major part of cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Chliattisearh at Bhilai. {•/ - J- -"^.,^'v.^-^-—. f ShaJi ^ 6. t,^;t^B^ 'i.j. <^* il 8 '-'•:i.'!-,~B-ffl.»FS3--' IKshu Admittedly, part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdictioti of fhe High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad. Accordingly, the petitioners have prefen-ed aa application under Section 482 ofthe Cr.P.C. as well as a Writ Petition under Article 226 ofthe Constitution oflndia seeking relief of quaslung ofFIR, befbre the Hi^i Court ofJudicature ofAndhra Pradesh at Hyderabad. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitionere and leamed counsel for the State. 8. Qn consideration of submissions made by leamed counsel for fhe parties, perusal of the papers, pleadings and documents appended thereto, it is evident fhat a Criminal Petition, filed under Section 482 offhe Cr.P.C. as well as Writ Petition, filed undei- Article 226 ofthe Constitution oflndia, seeking relief of quashing of the same F.LR. which is sought to be questioned ia tlie instant petition also, was filed before the High Court of Judicature ofAndlira Pradesh at Hyderabad and the sanie was dismissed on 18.07.2000 & 21.07.2000 respectively (Annexure P/14 & P/16). Tlie petitioners may not be permitted to raise fhe same issue again when their petitions have been dismissed by a competent constitutional court. 9. Without going into the facts ofthe case as to whether this petition, filed under Article 226 ofthe Constitution oflndia read with Section 482 ofthe Cr. P.C. is maintainable or not, fliis court is of tlie opinion that once fhe petitioners have approached the High Court of Judicature of Atidhra Pradesh at Hyderabad for the same relief, this Court cannot reconsider and srt as an appellate Court against the orders passed by the High Court of Judicature ofAndhra Pradesh at Hvderabad. 10. This petition is accordingly dismissed as not maintamable. No ordei-as to costs. Sd/- satish^:Agny,otri Judgc