IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.6437 of 2009 Between: B. Janardhan Chetty .. Petitioner AND N. Ramachandra and another .. Respondents Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed therewith, the High Court will be pleased to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.110 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thamballapalle, Chittoor District. The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri D. Kodanda Rami Reddy, Advocate for the petitioner and of the Public Prosecutor for the 2nd respondent, the Court made the following: ORDER: Heard Sri D. Kodanda Rami Reddy, leaned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A. Ramesh, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor for the 2nd respondent. No notice is being ordered to the 1st respondent, as the matter is being disposed of at the stage of admission. Criminal Petition No.2927 of 2007 filed by the petitioner for quashing the proceedings failed earlier at the stage of admission. The petitioner again comes up with this petition on the ground that he succeeded before the State Consumer Forum in F.A. No.1855 of 2005 on 13-10-2007 and in the light of the judgment of the Consumer Forum, the criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed. It is seen from the order of the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad in F.A. No.1855 of 2005 that the Forum was deciding the liability of the petitioner herein for any compensation and exonerated him of the said liability, as he was only a dealer. The Forum was not even remotely considering any criminal liability of the petitioner vis-à- vis the transaction and while the judgment of the Forum may be of great persuasive value even before the criminal Court, it may not be sufficient to quash the proceedings straight away in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. The allegation in the complaint against the petitioner herein before the criminal Court was that he deceived the complainant by falsely representing the seeds supplied to be of good quality. Whether there was such a representation and whether the same amounts to proof of necessary ingredient of an offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, has to be decided on trial before the Court of competent jurisdiction. Therefore, this is not a case where the inherent jurisdiction of this Court can be invoked. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 19-08-2009 Svv