THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION No.1778 of 2008 ORDER: Petitioners approached this Court with a prayer to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.626 of 2007 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vizianagaram, wherein the petitioners are facing trial for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 423, 425, 465, 471 read with Section 34 of IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that originally a private complaint was filed by the defacto-complainant/1st respondent herein before the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vizianagaram, on 07.12.2005, and the same was referred to the concerned police under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., for investigation. Thereupon, the police registered the said complaint as a case in Crime No.117 of 2005 of Bhogapuram Police Station and, after due investigation, filed a final report on 29.04.2006 referring the case as ‘non-cognizable’. Learned counsel also submitted that notice was served on the defacto-complainant informing him that the case filed by him was referred as ‘non-cognizable’, but the complainant, instead of filing protest petition against the final report submitted by the investigating agency, filed another private complaint on 30.10.2006 before the very same Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vizianagaram, with the same allegations as stated in the earlier complaint filed on 07.12.2005, which was registered as a case in Crime No.117 of 2005 of Bhogapuram Police Station. Learned counsel further submitted that without filing any protest petition, the defacto- complainant filed another complaint without any new set of facts and circumstances to take cognizance of it, and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the same as C.C.No.626 of 2007. Perused the entire records and heard the submissions of the learned counsel. Admittedly, with regard to the earlier complaint, on a reference made by the learned Magistrate under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., the concerned police filed a final report referring the case as ‘non- cognizable (civil in nature)’. Basing on this final report, the learned Magistrate issued notice to the defacto-complainant informing him about the outcome of the investigation done by the investigating agency. But, instead of filing a protest petition, the defacto-complainant filed another complaint on 30.10.2006 with the same allegations as mentioned in his earlier complaint dated 07.12.2005 and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the same as C.C.No.626 of 2007. In this regard, it is to be noticed that without passing any order on the outcome of the investigation done by the investigating agency in the earlier complaint, the learned Magistrate ought not to have taken cognizance of the 2nd complaint filed on 30.10.2006. For the aforesaid reasons, this criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings initiated against the petitioners in C.C.No.626 of 2007 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vizianagaram, are hereby quashed. However, if the defacto- complainant intends to file protest petition against the final report filed by the investigating agency in connection with the complaint filed on 07.12.2005, he is at liberty to do so, and on filing such protest petitioner, if any, the learned Magistrate shall decide the issue in accordance with law. ____________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 31.03.2011 v v