HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.6124 of 2009 DATED:11.08.2009 Between: K.Srinivas Varma .. Petitioner/Accused And The State of A.P., rep., by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad through S.H.O., Madhapur P.S., Cyberabad and another .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.6124 of 2009 ORDER: Heard Sri M.L.N.Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri A.Ramesh, learned counsel, who entered appearance on behalf of the Public Prosecutor for the first respondent. No notice is being ordered to the second respondent, as the matter is being disposed of at the stage of admission. The petitioner is facing prosecution for the alleged offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 thereof in C.C.No.1548 of 2006 on the file of the IX Metropolitan Magisgtrate, Miyapur, Rangareddy District. The original charge sheet and the charge sheet filed in continuation thereof allege that the petitioner, as a Specialist/Project manager with the second respondent, committed the offences in connection with the recruitment of personnel to the company by demanding or receiving cash of different quantums from the recruitees. The statements of some of the witnesses recorded by the police during the course of investigation, as seen from the copies of such statements filed by the petitioner are in corroboration of such a claim and the petitioner disputes the allegations and claims innocence of all the offences. However, they are all questions of fact, which have to be gone into by the trial Court and the truth or otherwise of such disputed questions of fact cannot be the subject of a deep fact finding probe in a restricted enquiry, in a proceeding under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the petitioner raises various grounds in this Criminal Petition about framing of the charges in the absence of cogent and convincing proof of the allegations made against him, but it cannot be said that the contents of the charge sheet or the material collected by the investigating agency during the course of investigation in support of the said charge sheets do not ex facie disclose the possibility of fastening the alleged criminal liability to the petitioner. Similar is the question of competence of the person, who set the criminal law into motion on behalf of the second respondent. Under the circumstances, the case does not appear to be falling under the rarest of rare cases where the Court would interfere under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that too with great care, caution and circumspection. Sri M.L.N.Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner, who was admitted to be a Specialist with vast experience is being harassed with the criminal proceedings since last four years for ulterior reasons and motives and the further proceedings in the case at least may be expedited so that his future career is not put to further jeopardy. The request is reasonable and the trial Court is requested accordingly to expedite the trial of the case. Therefore, the criminal petition is dismissed, but the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Miyapur, Ranga Reddy District shall proceed with the trial and determination of C.C.No.1548 of 2006 on his file in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible at any rate preferably within six months from the date of communication of the order of this Court. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J 11th August 2009 KH