THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.2032 of 2007 Dated: 9th February, 2010 Between: K.Shekar …Petitioner AND State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by Public Prosecutor and others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.2032 of 2007 ORDER: This petition is filed by the 2nd accused under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing F.I.R in Crime No.42/2004 of Miryalaguda(R) Police Station relating to offences punishable under Section 403, 406, 409 and 418 I.P.C. 2) A-2 was working as staff assistant in Nalgonda District Co- operative Central Bank Limited, Nalgonda. It is alleged that one A.Pratap Reddy of Krupa Pharmaceuticals Limited applied for loan of Rs.3,00,000/- towards working capital and that the then Deputy General Manager of the Bank (A-3) recommended for sanction of Rs.2,50,000/- and that original title documents deposited by Pratap Reddy were circulated among officers of the Bank and they were misplaced and could not be traced. There is no dispute that A-1 to A-3 were in-charge of the record during that period. It is stated that departmental enquiry was ordered against all the accused and that in the departmental enquiry, the petitioner was found not guilty and was exonerated and that the Branch Manager of the Bank through letter dated 16.03.2004 requested the Sub Inspector of Police, Miryalaguda (R) Police Station to discharge A-2 and to proceed against one Allam Pratap Reddy (A-1) only. It is also stated that another letter was addressed to the Superintendent of Police to that affect and that in spite of it, the petitioner is being harassed by calling him to the police station. 3) When the criminal law was set into motion by giving first information report to the police, the first informant has no right to interfere in the investigation until it is concluded. The petitioner will be knowing whether he was exonerated from the criminal case or not, only on filing of final report by the police under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C before the Magistrate. In case the investigating officer finds that there is no complicity for A-2 in this case, then he may not file charge sheet against A-2. Irrespective of subsequent events of addressing letters by the defacto-complainant to the police officers, in case the investigating officer finds that there is complicity for A-2 also in the offence proper, then the investigating officer will file charge sheet against A-2 also in spite of he being exonerated in departmental enquiry. In case the police filed charge sheet against A-2 also, then it is open for A-2 and the defacto-complainant to approach the Magistrate and file a petition under Section 320 Cr.P.C for compounding of the offence resulting in acquittal of A-2/the petitioner. Instead of following procedure prescribed by law, the defacto-complainant cannot dictate to the police that case against a particular accused may be dropped. It is prerogative of the police to investigate into and come to a conclusion of its own basing on evidence collected by the investigating officer during investigation. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that this petition is premature and that no relief can be granted to the petitioner at this stage under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 4) In the result, the petition is dismissed. __________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J February 09, 2010 KSH HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.2032 of 2007 February 09, 2010 KSH