IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6257 OF 2008 Between: S.Prabhakar and others. …PETITIONERS AND The State of A.P. and another ...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6257 OF 2008 O R D E R: The petitioners seeking for quashing of First Information Report in Crime No.392 of 2008 on the file of the Chilakalaguda Police Station. This petition become infructuous so far as the second petitioner is concerned as the second petitioner died on 30.10.2010. 2. The contention of Sri V.Jithender Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners is that the second respondent, who filed a complaint, which was registered as First Information Report in Crime No.377 of 2008 filed a private complaint before the X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad on the same allegations and that the second complaint is liable to be quashed. When the second respondent laid a complaint before the Court in June, 2008, the case was referred to Chilakalaguda Police Station under Section 156 (3) of Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973 for investigation. Considering that the case was made out, police registered the same as Crime No.392 of 1998. 3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the allegations of the second respondent in Crime Nos.337 of 2008 and 392 of 2008 are identical under the second First Information Report and consequently is not maintainable. 4. I am not able to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. The second complaint, which is a private complaint, is more exhaustive. It refers primarily to extortion on the part of the petitioners. On the other hand, the first complaint, dated 30.05.2008, is about the trespass and criminal intimidation by the accused against the second respondent. I therefore, considered that the First Information Report in Crime No.392 of 2008 cannot be quashed on the ground that it is a repetition of the earlier complaint in First Information Report in Crime No.337 of 2008. 5. At any rate, if both First Information Reports relate to the same incident, the petitioners may take steps for clubbing of both of them into a single crime. As already pointed out, the complaint in Crime No.392 of 2008 cannot be quashed for the reasons already set out. Thus, this petition is dismissed. However, it is open for the petitioners to move the trial Court for trial of cases relating to Crime Nos.392 of 2008 and 337 of 2008 as a single case or simultaneously at one and the same time. __________________ K.G.SHANKAR, J NOVEMBER 02, 2011 YVL THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6257 OF 2008 02.11.2011 YVL