HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.5932 of 2010 ORDER: This criminal petition is filed by the petitioner-defacto complainant seeking a direction to the II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajahmundry, to commence trial in C.C.No.88 of 2009 and dispose of the case expeditiously. 2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to hereinafter as they were arrayed in C.C.No.88 of 2009. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner herein lodged a complaint with the S.H.O., I Town (L & O) P.S., Rajahmundry, against three accused-respondents 1 to 3 herein for the offences punishable under Section 498-A r/w Section 34 IPC. After investigation, the police filed charge sheet and the same was taken on file by the II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajahmundry, as C.C.No.88 of 2009. Subsequently, A.2 and A.3 filed Crl.P.No.1951 of 2009 before this Court seeking to quash the proceedings initiated against them in C.C.No.88 of 2009, and a learned Judge of this Court, by an order dated 13.10.2009, while quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.88 of 2009 in so far as A.3 is concerned, dismissed the said petition in so far as A.2 is concerned. Thus, the case shall be proceeded with against A.1 and A.2. However, the learned Magistrate is adjourning the C.C. on the presumption that all further proceedings in the C.C. are stayed. Hence, the defacto complainant approached this Court and filed this Criminal Petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that though there is no stay of all further proceedings in C.C.No.88 of 2009, the court below is adjourning the case without conducting examination of A.1 and A.2 on the ground that the proceedings in the C.C. are stayed. In that context, he has drawn the attention of this Court to a neat copy of docket orders dated 07.12.2009 and 19.01.2010 of the court below. 5. As seen from the order dated 13.10.2009 passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.1951 of 2009, it is clear that the proceedings in C.C.No.88 of 2009 are quashed only in so far as A.3 is concerned and the said petition is dismissed in so far as A.2 is concerned. But however, the court below recorded on 07.12.2009 and 19.01.2010 that further proceedings in the C.C. are stayed by this Court. Therefore, I find some force in the contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner. When once Crl.P.No.1951 of 2009 was dismissed in so far as A.2 is concerned, the court below ought to have proceeded with the trial, in accordance with law. 6. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed, at the stage of admission, and the learned II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajahmundry, is hereby directed to proceed with the trial in C.C.No.88 of 2009 forthwith, and dispose of the case, in accordance with law. _______________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA,J 2nd July, 2010 CBS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.5932 of 2010 (Allowed) Date:02.07.2010 CBS