IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRL.P.NO.2005 OF 2007. Date:08.02.2010 Between:- B.Narasimha Reddy ..Petitioner/Accused And The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad and another .. Respondents ORDER:- This petition is filed by the 1st accused under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing proceedings in C.C.No.1 of 2007 on the file of Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad relating to offence punishable under Section 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999 (in short, the Act). 2. The only point raised by the petitioner’s counsel in this case is that on the same set of facts, there is C.C.No.36 of 2005 pending on the file of VII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hayatnagar, Rangareddy District and that therefore, the present case in C.C.No.1 of 2007 is not maintainable in Metropolitan Sessions Court, Hyderabad. Previously, the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant filed private complaint before the then Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class (East and North), Ranga Reddy District against A1 and A2 alleging offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 324, 506 and 120- B I.P.C. The Magistrate forwarded the complaint to Vanasthalipuram police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation and report. The police registered the complaint as case in Crime No.651 of 2004 and issued F.I.R., investigated into the case and filed charge sheet before the VII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hayatnagar in C.C.No.36 of 2005. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant filed another complaint before the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad on the same set of facts alleging offence punishable under Section 5 of the Act. The Metropolitan Sessions Judge forwarded the complaint to Central Crime Station, Hyderabad under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation and report. In that police station, this complaint was registered as case in Crime No.142 of 2005. After investigation, the police filed charge sheet in Metropolitan Sessions Court, Hyderabad in C.C.No.1 of 2007. 3. It is stated that trial of C.C.No.36 of 2005 on the file of the VII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hayatnagar is going on. Question of double jeopardy and applicability of Section 300 Cr.P.C. does not arise in this case because there is no previous conviction or previous acquittal in any of the two cases. In any event, Section 300 Cr.P.C. prohibits second trial for the ‘same offence’ and any second trial on the same set of facts. Ingredients for offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 I.P.C. are entirely different from ingredients for offence under Section 5 of the Act. Therefore, there is no prohibition in law for trying the accused for a different offence on the same set of facts in case the present offence does not overlap with ingredients for the offences for which the petitioner/accused is being tried previously. The Magistrate Court has no competence to entertain a case relating to offence punishable under Section 5 of the Act. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that C.C.No.1 of 2007 on the file of Metropolitan Sessions Judge is not in any way barred in the circumstances of the case. There are absolutely no valid or legal reasons for quashing proceedings in C.C.No.1 of 2007. 4. In the result, the petition is dismissed. _​_________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J 8th February 2010 AMD