THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO. CRL. PETITION No. 5873 of 2010. ORDER: This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings in C.F.No. 12464 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ananthapur. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State. In an incident that occurred on 2.2.2006 at about 7.40 p.m. at Maddipalli cross-roads of Ananthapur District two persons were killed and that on the report lodged by the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant with the police, Putlur showing the name of the petitioner as A.1 along with others, the police after investigation filed charge sheet against 17 accused and deleted the name of the petitioner on the ground that he did not involve in the alleged incident. In protest thereof, the 2nd respondent filed a private complaint before the concerned Magistrate alleging that the petitioner is also one of the persons responsible for the murder of two persons. The charge sheet which was filed by the police against 17 accused was committed to the Court of Sessions and it is numbered as S.C.No. 514 of 2009 on the file of the VI Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Gooty. The contention of Sri.Kailasnath Reddy, Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the learned Magistrate, Ananthpur after commencing the enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. has not been following the procedure prescribed for recording the statements of the witnesses and permitting the counsel for the 2nd respondent to examine the witnesses and recording the statements of witnesses. On the other hand, the learned Senior Counsel Sri.C.Padmanabha Reddy appearing for the 2nd respondent would submit that before congnizance is taken against the petitioner, he has no locus standi to move this Court seeking to quash the proceedings on any ground. He would further submit that there is no wrong on the part of the counsel in assisting the 2nd respondent in the matter of recording the statements of the witnesses and therefore the learned Senior Counsel seeks to dismiss the petition. Proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 202 Cr.P.C. lays down that if it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, he shall call upon the complainant to produce all his witnesses and examine them on oath. In the instant case, in compliance with the said provision, the complainant was called for to bring all his witnesses for the purpose of preliminary enquiry by recording their statements. At this stage, the petitioner has approached this Court before taking congizance of the case against him alleging that the learned Magistrate is not following the procedure while recording the statements of the witnesses. In view of clear provision of law, it cannot be said that the learned Magistrate is not following the procedure contemplated under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The petitioner has no locus standi to approach this Court even prior to taking cognizance of the case against him and approach before this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is quite premature and unwarranted. It amounts to abuse of process of the law. For the foregoing reasons, I see no grounds to quash the proceedings in in C.F.No. 12464 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ananthapur. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed. Consequently, the interim stay granted in the criminal petition and extended from time to time is hereby vacated. ______________________ R.KANTHA RAO,J 04.10.2010. KRB. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO. CRL. PETITION No. 5873 of 2010. ORDER: DT. 04.10.2010.