THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION No.6483 of 2011 ORDER: Petitioners/A-3 and A-4 approached this Court with a prayer to quash the proceedings initiated against them in C.C.No.569 of 2006 on the file of the X Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Malkajgiri, wherein they are facing trial for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 418, 420 read with Section 34 of IPC. Heard both sides. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that since the petitioners were not residing in India at the time of commission of offence, they were not involved in the alleged crime and also they were not aware of the allegations against them at any point of time. Admittedly, the petitioners were not in India during the time of investigation and also trial and the police also filed the report showing the petitioners as absconding, hence, the case against the petitioners was separated and numbered as CC.No.569 of 2006. The other accused i.e., A-1, A-2 and A-5 in the case were tried in C.C.No.122 of 2005 on the file of X Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Malkajgiri. After due trial, the trial Court acquitted A-1, A-2 and A-5 in CC.No.122 of 2005 by an elaborate judgment dated 08.04.2011. The main reasons for acquitting A1, A2 and A5 are assigned at paragraph 34 of the said judgment dated 08.04.2011 in C.C.No.122 of 2005, which reads as follows: “Therefore on perusal of the evident of prosecution witnesses as the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 before this Court is omissions and improvements from Ex.P-1 complaint and also from the 161 Cr.P.C. statements recorded by PW-3 Investigating Officer and as the contents of Ex.P-1 complaint are contrary to the Ex.D-1 legal notice issued by PW-1 before filing of this complaint and as the prosecution failed to prove that the accused No.1 and 2 created Ex.D-7 i.e., letter, dt.5.1.2003 and tampered Minutes Proceedings, dt.8.1.2003 and as Ex.P-32 Minutes Proceedings filed by the prosecution is not tallying with Ex.D-14 Minutes Proceedings which is the certified copy obtained from the court and as the prosecution failed to prove the entrustment of the property to the accused by PW-1 and as the prosecution failed to prove that the accused violated the by-laws of the society and as the dispute between the parties is civil in nature and as admittedly the civil suit bearing No.358/2003 is pending adjudication before the competent civil court and as there is abnormal unexplained delay of more than six months in filing of the complaint by PW-1 and also considering the citations relied upon by the accused, I am of the opinion that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilty of the Accused No.1,2 and 5 for the offences punishable U/s.406, 409, 418 and 420 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt.” Admittedly, in the charge sheet also the respondent police opined that the petitioners herein cannot be linked to the present crime as they were out of country. Considering all the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and also the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court is of the view that the present complaint against the petitioners is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the proceedings against the petitioners/A-3 & A-4 in C.C.No.569 of 2006 on the file of the X Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Malkajgiri. The miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal petition shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 28.09.2011 v v