THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.2176 of 2007 ORDER: This petition is filed by the accused No.7 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing proceedings in C.C.No.33 of 2006 on the file of Special Mobile Magistrate, Guntur, relating to offences punishable under Sections 403, 420, 467/120-B/34 IPC. A.7 is the Deputy Manager (Accounts), who granted loan in favour of the other accused on security of original title deed in respect of land of Acs.1.26 cents in D.No.460/A-B5 of Purushottam Patnam Village of Chilakaluripet Mandal. It is contention of the second respondent/Complainant that after procuring her original title deed for the land by deceitful means, A.1 to A.6 hatched a plan to grab the land and in collusion with A.7 and A.8 and others, who are employees of State Bank of India, Kannavarithota Branch, Guntur, obtained loan of Rs.6,00,000/- originally in the name of Ayyappa Trading Company in the year 1993-94 and subsequently enhanced the loan amount to Rs.10,00,000/- and that in the year 1996, name of the company was changed as Ayyappa Corporation and thereafter, fresh loan was obtained to the extent of Rs.15,00,000/- and that in the year 1997, name of the company was changed as Balaji Cotton Traders and again a fresh loan of Rs.10,00,000/- was obtained and that again name of the company was changed as Vijayalakshmi Enterprises and loan of Rs.25,00,000/- was obtained in the year 2001. It is alleged that all the said loans were obtained on the strength of security of land belonging to the Complainant by depositing original title deed, which was obtained by A.1 to A.6 by deceitful means. According to the Complainant, A.7 and A.8 also colluded with A.1 to A.6 in the loan transaction. It is further alleged that even though the Complainant is a signatory, one woman was produced before the bank officials and her thumb impressions were taken and that on further occasions of enhancement of loan and fresh loans, several other women were produced and their thumb impressions were obtained. Finally, the bank filed petition before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam for recovery of loan amount on the security of land belonging to the Complainant. It is stated by the second respondent’s counsel that the second respondent came to know about all these transactions only when the Debt Recovery Tribunal gave notice to her and that when the documents were verified, they were containing thumb impressions of several persons in the name of the second respondent. It is further stated by the second respondent’s counsel that the second respondent took steps before the Debt Recovery Tribunal to send all the loan documents to expert along with her own thumb impressions and that opinion of the expert was received to the effect that none of the thumb impressions contained in loan documents tallied with each other much less with admitted thumb impressions of the second respondent. Under those circumstances, on report given by the second respondent, Nagarampalem Police registered case in Crime No.164 of 2003 and investigated into the offence and filed charge sheet against A.1 to A.6 only in the lower Court in the year 2004 by showing the petitioner as a witness for prosecution. It is stated that the said charge sheet was registered as C.C.No.79 of 2005 in the lower Court. Thereafter, the second respondent filed private complaint in the lower Court adding A.7 and A.8 also and the lower Court took the same on file and registered the same as C.C.No.33 of 2006. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that the present private complaint filed by the second respondent is nothing but second complaint filed by her and that it is not permissible in law and that in case participation of A.7 and A.8 in the transaction along with A.1 to A.6 is found out during trial of the police case, then the lower Court could have invoked Section 319 Cr.P.C. and could have impleaded A.7 and A.8 also in the police case. I am of the opinion that the present complaint is not a second complaint filed by the Complainant and it is only an additional report/complaint given by the Complainant to the Court against A.7 and A.8 who are stated to have been illegally omitted by the police. Even though the present private complaint by the second respondent was in the year 2005 nearly 13 years after starting of the loan transaction as contended by the petitioner’s counsel, the Complainant did not keep quiet all those years after having knowledge of the loan transaction. She came to know about the loan transaction only after she received notices from the Debt Recovery Tribunal in which the bank filed case against loanees and the Complainant as guarantor. It may be noted that during trial of the police case, the second respondent will not have any participation and will not be allowed to prosecute the police case, because the police case is handled by the Public Prosecutor. During trial of that case, the de facto complainant has no direct participation except giving evidence as first witness. The police did not collect evidence regarding thumb impressions in loan documents and also participation of A.7 and A.8 in the offence along with A.1 to A.6. It is the Complainant who secured all the papers and obtained opinion from expert and it is only the Complainant who can put forth all the additional facts before the trial Court to show complicity of A.7 and A.8 also in this crime. So, I do not agree that the private complaint filed by the second respondent is a second complaint filed with a view to harass the petitioner. No doubt, as laid down in T.T.Antony v. State of Kerala[1], the police are not precluded from filing additional charge sheet under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. after making further investigation. But, when the police did not come forward to make further investigation and to collect further evidence, the de facto complainant, who is the victim and against whom a Democle sword by way of claim for Rs.25,00,000/- is hanging, is not precluded from approaching the Magistrate by way of private complaint. It is for the trial Court to go into all the questions and receive evidence to be let in not only by the police but also by the second respondent in both the cases to be tried simultaneously and to come to its own conclusion on merits. This Court cannot make any comment on truth or otherwise of the allegations made by the second respondent as against the petitioner/A.7 while disposing of this petition. I do not find any valid or legal reasons in this petition to give relief to petitioner/accused No.7 in this petition. In the result, the petition is dismissed. __________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J 19th FEBRUARY, 2010. kvni [1] (2001)6 SCC 181