HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.3016 of 2008 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the Petitioners/A.1 to A.7 (for short ‘A.1 to A.7’) under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to quash proceedings in Crime No.31 of 2008 of Cheepurupalli P.S., registered for offences punishable under Sections 420, 120-B I.P.C and Sections 5 and 13 of A.P. Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999. 2. Whereas the Petitioners are A.1 to A.7, the first Respondent is the de-facto complainant in the above said crime. For the sake of convenience, I refer the parties as arrayed in the F.I.R. 3. The de-facto complainant filed private complaint before the District Judge-cum-Special Court established under the A.P. Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999 at Vizianagaram against the petitioners under Sections 5 and 13 of the same Act and Sections 420 and 120-B I.P.C read with Section 200 Cr.P.C. on the ground that the police to whom it was forwarded had not properly investigated earlier complaint given by her registered in Crime No.108 of 2002 on their file and filed the corresponding charge sheet for offences punishable under Sections 420 and 120-B read with 34 I.P.C only though the accused are liable for prosecution under the said provisions of the special Act and consequently they are disposing of relevant properties and hence those provisions under the special Act should also be taken cognizance of. The learned District Judge- cum-Special Court, Vizianagaram forwarded the complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., for investigation and the said police registered the same in Crime No.31 of 2008 for the offences punishable under Sections 5 & 13 of the Act. 4. It is contended on behalf of A.1 to A.7 that whereas originally the concerned police filed the corresponding charge sheet under Section 420 and 120-B read with 34 I.P.C in Crime No.108 of 2002 and subsequently the other private complaint was filed by the de-facto complainant in the case under the same provisions and also Sections 5 and 13 of the special Act so far as the application of the Act is concerned, it came into force only w.e.f. 14.07.2003 whereas the alleged incident is said to have taken place earlier and therefore the provisions of the special Act are not applicable here. It is further his contention that when the calendar case has been pending before the Magistrate Court for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 120-B read with 34 I.P.C., filing of the other case basing on the same set of facts on the ground that even though Sections 5 and 13 of the special Act would apply the same provisions were not included in the earlier complaint filed is not tenable. 5. On the other hand, it is the contention of learned counsel for the complainant that already 20 witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 to 20 in the calendar case before the learned Magistrate and infact no case is pending before the concerned District Court in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 5 and 13 of the special Act and the Calendar Case before the Magistrate who got jurisdiction to try the same cannot be quashed. He has not disputed that Sections 5 and 13 of the special Act are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case on the ground that the same Act came into force subsequent to the alleged incident. 6. The point for consideration is: whether sufficient grounds are there in order to quash the F.I.R registered under Section 420, 120-B read with 34 I.P.C and Sections 5 & 13 of the special Act? 7. I have gone through the record. This clearly provides that the earlier complaint was filed in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 120-B I.P.C read with section 34 IPC and Sections 5 & 13 of the special Act and it was referred to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C following which the corresponding charge sheet was filed accordingly on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Cheepurupalli in C.C.No.108 of 2003 for the offences punishable under Sections 420 & 120-B IPC read with Section 34 IPC only and during the trial of that case P.Ws.1 to 20 were examined and further subsequently the other complaint was filed so as to include the Sections 5 & 13 of the special Act on the ground that though the accused committed those offences punishable thereunder also the same were not included earlier following which the case was registered in crime No.31 of 2008 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 120-B I.P.C and Sections 5 & 13 of the special Act on the file of said police station. 8. When already one calendar case has been pending, the question of filing another complaint and forwarding the same to the said police station and consequently registering it in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 420, 120-B I.P.C and Sections 5 & 13 of the special Act does not arise at all. On the other hand when the alleged incident took place prior to the coming into force of the special Act, the application of Sections 5 & 13 of the special Act also does not arise at all. In the calendar case now pending before the magistrate the relevant circumstances of the case can be considered. Simply because it is alleged that because of the non registration of the case under Sections 5 & 13 of the special Act the accused have been disposing of the properties on that ground alone those sections cannot be included. 9. The learned Magistrate can proceed with the further trial of the case in C.C.No.108 of 2003 on his file in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 120-B read with Section 34 I.P.C and the complainant can take necessary measures to safeguard the properties in question as per law. 10. In the result, the Criminal Petition is accordingly disposed of quashing the F.I.R in Crime No.31 of 2008 of Cheepurupalli P.S., subject to the observation made above. ___________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dated: 19-08-2011. vjl