IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE EIGHTH (8TH) DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Criminal Petition No.10806 of 2010 Between: Tejinder Singh … Petitioner/A.6 And: The State of A.P., rep. by its Sub Inspector of Police, PS KUC, Warangal, Through, Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad & another … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Criminal Petition No.10806 of 2010 ORDER: This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash further proceedings in CC No.125 of 2008 on the file of the VII Additional Munsif Magistrate, Warangal against the petitioner-A.6. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents-State. Perused the record. 3. The 2nd respondent herein, who is working as DSI (Crimes) K.U.C. PS, Warangal gave a report to the Sub Inspector of Police on 27.07.1997 seeking action against A.1 to A.5, who were stated to be selling duplicate citizen wrist watches. It is also stated in the said report that 14 such watches were seized from A.1 to A.5 under panchanama. Based on the said report, the Sub Inspector of Police, KUC PS, registered a case in Cr.No.18 of 1997 under Section 420 IPC. After due investigation, charge sheet was filed against A.1 to A.5 and also against the petitioner showing him as A.6. In the charge sheet, it is alleged that A.1 to A.5 who hails from Maharastra State, have been purchasing duplicate citizen wrist watches at the instance of the petitioner-A.6 at the rate of Rs.150/- per watch and selling the said watches to the public at Rs.200/- to Rs.900/- per watch and cheating the public. The dial of the watches was of Citizen Company, while the machine is duplicate. The charge sheet was taken cognizance by the learned Magistrate in CC No.125 of 2008 against A.1 to A.6 and NBWs were issued against A.6, who was stated to be absconding and A.1 to A.5 were remanded to judicial custody. 4. The petitioner-A.6 seeks quashing of further proceedings against him on the ground that, according to the alleged confessional statements of A.1 to A.5, they purchased the duplicate watches from one Tejender Singh, Proprietor of Dattam, Jagadish Market, Hyderabad, whereas the police are now trying to issue NBWs against the petitioner-A.6 by apprehending the petitioner, who has nothing to do with the case. According to the petitioner, suspect A.6 Tejender Singh, who is proprietor of Dattam, is a different person. 5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on instructions would submit that it was the petitioner alone, who was involved in the case and arrayed as A.6 in the charge sheet and when the police sought to execute NBWs pending against him, the present petition is filed only to avoid apprehension by police. 6. The alleged offence is said to have been committed in the year 1997. Originally, charge sheet was filed before the I Additional Munsif Magistrate, Warangal and the same was taken cognizance in CC No.271 of 1997. Later it was transferred to 4th Additional Munsif- Magistrate and renumbered as CC No.576 of 1998 and again it was transferred to 7th Additional Munsif-Magistrate and it was renumbered as CC No.125 of 2008. The case against A.1 to A.5 was split up and separately numbered as CC No.429 of 2008 and NBWs were issued against them. When the police sought to execute NBWs against the petitioner-A.6, the present application is filed disputing the identity of the person itself. The question as to the identity of the person involved as A.6 cannot be decided in the present proceeding filed about 13 years after filing of the charge sheet. The question as to whether or not the petitioner is the person arrayed as A.6 in the charge sheet and whether or not the petitioner is the person referred to by A.1 to A.5 in their confessional statement as the person at whose instance the wrist watches were purchased and sold, are matters to be considered by the trial Court on evidence. The disputed question as to identity of the person involved cannot be decided in the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 7. In the circumstances, there are no valid or sufficient grounds to invoke the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and to quash further proceedings against the petitioner-A.6 against whom specific allegation has been made in the charge sheet. There are no merits in the petition. 8. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 08.11.2010 bss