THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION No.2810 of 2007 ORDER: Petitioner approached this Court with a prayer to quash the proceedings initiated against him in C.C.No.613 of 2006 on the file of the II- Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore. The short point that arises for consideration in this petition is whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief prayed for by him on the ground that he ceased to be partner of the firm much earlier to filing of the complaint? A perusal of the record shows that the complaint was lodged in the year 2002, whereas the petitioner herein retired from partnership on 01.04.2001. During retirement from partnership, there was an agreement between other partners and the petitioner herein. In the order, dated 28.06.2005, in F.A.No.555 of 2003 passed by the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissioner, Hyderabad, it was observed as under: “…that he retired from the Vasudha Real Estates and Vasudha Housing Scheme from 1.4.2001. This complaint was filed on 31.10.2002. By the date of filing of the complaint, the third opp.party ceased to be the partner of the firm and he was not liable to pay any amount as the continuing partners agreed that retiring partners have no liability.” Since the observations made in the said order dated 28.06.2005 passed by the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissioner, Hyderabad, are not enough to quash the present complaint against the petitioner, this Court directed the learned Additional Public Prosecutor to verify the statements recorded by the Investigation Officer, and accordingly, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that out of 25 persons examined during the course of investigation, LWs.1 to 23 have neither implicated the petitioner nor whispered anything against the petitioner and that only L.Ws.24 and 25 stated that the partners are also liable for the alleged offence. However, in view of the fact that it is the duty of the Investigation Officer to find out whether the petitioner is also liable to pay the amount, the vague statements of L.Ws.24 and 25 cannot be a ground to proceed against the petitioner herein. In these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner in the present complaint are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, this criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings initiated against the petitioner in C.C.No.613 of 2006 on the file of the II- Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore, are hereby quashed. ____________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 21.04.2011 v v