IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICIATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH, AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF NOVEMBER THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.P.No.9764 OF 2010 Between:- Latha Jain …Petitioner A n d The State of A.P., Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.P.No.9764 OF 2010 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing the order dated 20-06-2008 pertaining to Cr.No.181 of 2007 of P.S.Narayanaguda. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the second respondent-de facto complainant. Perused the records. 3. The second respondent herein filed a complaint before the IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, against the petitioner/A-1 and others and the same was forwarded by the learned Magistrate to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The police registered a case a crime in F.I.R.No.181 of 2007 for the offences under Sections 191, 193, 199, 415, 420 read with Sections 34, 120-B IPC. After investigation, the police filed final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C stating that it is not possible to take action against the alleged accused persons for lack of evidence. Thereupon, the second respondent filed a protest petition before the learned Magistrate. In the said application, the second respondent has stated that he furnished all the material papers to the investigating officer, but however, his statement was not recorded. It is further alleged in the protest petition that the investigating officer, without conducting any investigation and without examining anyone, filed a final report, which is abuse of process of law. 4. A perusal of the final report filed by the police shows that the complaints filed by the complainant earlier and registered as F.I.Rs were closed by filing final reports, treating them as undetected and the writ petitions filed by the complainant were dismissed and the F.I.R registered against the complainant, based on the complaints given by the petitioner herein were investigated and charge sheets were also filed in the courts concerned and they are pending trial. The final report further states that again the complainant filed a private complaint before the IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, pertaining to the same issue. The learned Magistrate, by the impugned order dated 20-06-2008, directed the Station House Officer, Narayanguda, to investigate further and examine the witnesses and file a report. The impugned order also states that the final report was filed without examining the de facto complainant and the witnesses. It is well within the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate to accept the final report or give any direction for further investigation before issuing any proceedings in pursuance of the final report. When a Magistrate finds that the final report has been filed without examining the complainant and other witnesses, the direction issued to the Station House Officer to further investigate and examine the witnesses is certainly within the competence of the learned Magistrate. The impugned order does not, therefore, suffer from any irregularity or legal infirmity so as to quash the same by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 5. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. _____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 29th November, 2010 Lrkm.