HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CRL.M.P.No.4413 of 2008 IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.1652 OF 2007 DATE:25-08-2010 BETWEEN Mir Firasath Ali & Another …Petitioners AND The State of A.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad Through S.H.O., P.S., Humayun Nagar, Hyderabad & Another. …Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CRL.M.P.No.4413 of 2008 IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.1652 OF 2007 ORDER: Crl.P.No.1652 of 2007 was filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the Crime No.353 of 2006 pending on the file of Humayunnagar Police Station, Hyderabad in which the petitioners are arrayed as A.2 and A.3 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 324, 420 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. In the petition it was stated that a settlement has been arrived between the complainant and A.1 on 5.10.2006 after registering the complaint, in the presence of elders and as per the agreement, dated 4.10.2006, on the same day, the second complainant addressed a letter to the Station House Officer, P.S., Humayunnagar to stop the proceedings. On the basis of the compromise and on the basis of the withdrawal letter given by the second respondent-complainant, the police filed a final report stating that ‘undetected due to lack of evidence’ and requested the VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad to close the proceedings categorically stating that a settlement was arrived between the parties. It was stated that after settlement of the disputes, A.1 and the second respondent are residing separately. While so, on 23.1.2007 A.1 had pronounced divorce from Dammam without the knowledge of the petitioners herein. After receiving the divorce letter from A.1, the second respondent started hectic efforts to harass the petitioners herein by way of reopening the earlier case registered before the first respondent. Hence, they sought to quash the crime. Along with the petition, a certified copy of final report said to have been filed by the police on 3.10.2006 stating that the case was undetected due to lack of evidence has been filed. This Court by order, dated 14.3.2007 stayed all further proceedings in the crime. Basing on the final report which shows that the case was reported as undetected for want of evidence, this Court by order dated 16.7.2008 disposed of the Criminal Petition holding that neither the first information report is pending nor any charge sheet is filed and that there is nothing to quash. However, in the light of the said order, the petitioners were directed to approach the court concerned for discharge of sureties who shall be discharged, as no case is pending with a further observation that the Court below may verify the correctness of filing of final report. On disposal of the Criminal Petition, the petitioners filed the present Crl.M.P.No.4413 of 2008 to post the Criminal Petition ‘for being mentioned’ for recalling the records pertaining to C.C.No.940 of 2007 pending on the file of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad alleging that in spite of the stay granted by this Court in the Criminal Petition on 14.3.2007, police filed a second final report as charge sheet in the same crime which was numbered as C.C.No.940 of 2007, and that the lower Court without verifying the interim order granted by this Court numbered the said charge sheet as C.C. The said fact was not known to the petitioners or their counsel at the time when the Criminal petition was finally disposed of. On filing the said application, this Court called for a report from the Magistrate and the Magistrate filed a report on 15.9.2008 which shows that the case was taken on file on 15.10.2007 on the final report filed by the investigating officer. Therefore, it is not clear as to what exactly has happened; whether after filing of final report on the basis of any protest petition, the case was taken on file as C.C.No.940 of 2007. But the report of the Magistrate discloses that till 18.3.2008 the information was not furnished to the trial Court and in the absence of the same, the trial Court took the case on file on 15.10.2007 as C.C.No.940 of 2007, and therefore, the matter with regard to question of taking cognizance after the stay granted by this Court is concerned, the matter shall be deemed to be closed. Therefore, this Court directed the learned Magistrate to report as to what exactly has happened; whether the final report, dated 3.10.2006 was filed treating the case as ‘undetected’, if so, how the matter was taken on file as C.C.No.940 of 2007. Thereafter, the matter underwent several adjournments for want of detailed report. The Magistrate submitted a report on 22.6.2010. In the report, it is stated that the de facto complainant and accused agreed for a compromise in police station, wherein accused promised to look after the complainant well, but it appears accused did not stick on to the conditions and left abroad. The same fact was brought to the notice of police by de facto complainant during investigation, alleging that they (accused) misrepresented before police, made efforts to see the case is closed and thus cheated her. Then the police filed charge sheet before the Court. It is reported that no final report was filed to close the case at any point of time. In view of the said report, this Court called for the entire original file in C.C.No.940 of 2007 along with the final report filed by the police on 3.10.2006 on which basis the Court took cognizance of the offence. The final report, dated 3.10.2006 was filed by K.S.Ravi, the Officer Incharge of Police Station, which discloses that the petitioners are liable to be proceeded for the offences alleged. Along with the report, statement of the younger brother of the complainant, complainant and two others were also enclosed. On the basis of the said report, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence. The Court seal on the complaint differs from the certified copy of the final report filed by the petitioners along with the petition. In the final report, on each page, there is a stamp affixed, but in the final report received by the Court, no such stamp has been affixed about receipt of the complaint by the Court. But there is no such rubber stamp on the certified copy filed by the petitioners along with the Criminal Petition. Prima facie, it appears that the certified copy of the final report is not the genuine Photostat copy. In view of the same, the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners that when the police filed a final report stating that the case is undetected due to lack of evidence the Court below ought not to have registered C.C.No.940 of 2007, cannot be taken as a basis for quashing the proceedings. In view of the same, it is not desirable to entertain Crl.M.P.No.4413 of 2008. The same is accordingly dismissed. The Registry shall lodge a complaint against the petitioners, who filed the certified copy of the final report to this Court, which appears to be a false, forged and fabricated document. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. AUGUST 25, 2010 Note: Registry is directed to forthwith return the Records in C.C.No.940 of 2007 to the Court below through special messenger and report compliance of receipt of the record. (B/o.)Tsr.