THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRIMINAL PETITION No.4820 OF 2010 DATED:26-11-2010 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing further proceedings in Cr.No.261 of 2010 of Panjagutta police station, Hyderabad. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the records. 3. With the consent of both sides, the matter is taken up for final hearing. 4. 2nd respondent herein filed a private complaint against the petitioner before the learned XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, alleging offences under Sections 420, 406, 506 r/w 34 IPC. The learned Magistrate referred the same to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., and the police, Panjagutta police station registered First Information Report in Cr.No.261 of 2010. Investigation is still pending. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the 2nd respondent herein filed another private complaint against the petitioner alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for brevity, ‘the Act’) and the same is taken cognizance by the learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District in C.C.No.6 of 2010 and in the said complaint no reference is made with regard to the allegation made in the present complaint. 6. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent on the other hand would submit that the subject-matter of C.C.No.6 of 2010 is entirely different and the said complaint was confined to the bouncing of the cheque issued by the petitioner-accused for Rs.10,50,000/-, whereas the allegations made in the present complaint are different. 7. As seen from the contents of the complaint, reference is made to the filing of the complaint in C.C.No.6 of 2010 before the leaned III Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District, pertaining to the offence under Section 138 of the Act. Specific allegations are made in the complaint to the effect that petitioner has played fraud on the complainant and committed breach of trust. It is further alleged that the accused on 03-03-2010, came upon the complainant along with others and manhandled him demanding return of the original promissory notes and cheques. The truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint can be decided only after necessary investigation is made into the same and they cannot be determined at this stage in the present proceedings. Having regard to the fact that specific allegations are made in the complaint, prima facie, attracting the ingredients of the offence, it is considered not a fit case to quash further investigation in Cr.No.261 of 2010 of Panjagutta police station by invoking the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. However, petitioner may not be arrested till the conclusion of investigation and filing of the charge sheet, if any. 8. In the result, Criminal Petition is dismissed as stated above. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 26th November, 2010 Tsy