IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 5370 of 2008 Between: 1 Y. Ravi Kiran Raju S/o. Ramana RAju Both are R/o. SMC Home, 1st Floor, Plot No.6, Behind Hi-Tech Theatre, Madhapur, Hyderabad, Ranga Reddy Dist. 2 Y. Durga Bhavani W/o. Y. Ravi Kiran Raju Both are R/o. SMC Home, 1st Floor, Plot No.6, Behind Hi-Tech Theatre, Madhapur, Hyderabad, Ranga Reddy Dist. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Inspector of Police, Police Station Osmania University, O.U. Campus, Hyderabad-7. 2 Dasi Venu Madhav S/o. Ramanaiah R/o. H.No.2-16-15/303, Prashanth Nagar, Uppal, Hyderabad, Ranga Reddy District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.CHANDRAIAH SUNKARA Counsel for Respondent No.1: AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 in registering Crime No.49 of 2008 against the petitioners and two others as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioners sought for quashing of the said crime. Heard Sri Chandraiah Sunkara, learned counsel for the petitioners. A perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition shows that on the complaint given by petitioner No.1 against respondent No.2, respondent No.1 registered Crime No.53 of 2008. Even before the same, respondent No.2 approached the jurisdictional Magistrate by way of a private complaint and the same was referred by the learned Magistrate to respondent No.1 for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘the Code’). In pursuance of the same, respondent No.1 registered Crime No.49 of 2008 against the petitioners and two others under Sections 420, 406 and 34 IPC. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the allegations mentioned in the complaint do not make out commission of offence and, therefore, registration of crime is wholly unwarranted. I am not in agreement with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners. Respondent No.1 registered Crime No.49 of 2008 in pursuance of the orders passed by the jurisdictional Magistrate. The petitioners have not either questioned the said order of the Magistrate or filed a copy thereof. Respondent No.1 merely followed the judicial order passed by the learned Magistrate under the provisions of the Code. Unless the petitioners question the very order passed by the Magistrate in pursuance of which the crime is registered and seek quashing of the private complaint filed by respondent No.2, they cannot maintain this writ petition for merely quashing the crime registered by respondent No.1 in pursuance of the order passed by the jurisdictional Magistrate. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ajay Mitra v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others [1]. In the said case, on reference by the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the police submitted a report stating that prima facie, a case of business competition and violation of the agreements is made out and the complainant is advised to approach the civil Court. However, after consideration of the said report, the learned Magistrate directed the Police Officer concerned to submit a report in the prescribed pro forma and accordingly, the police submitted a report that on the basis of the complaint, three criminal cases have been registered under Sections 420, 120-B and 34 IPC. When investigation was being carried on and a date was fixed by the Magistrate, the appellants filed criminal miscellaneous petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before the High Court for quashing the FIR and the proceedings of the case before the learned Magistrate. From all these facts mentioned above, I am of the view that the case decided by the Supreme Court turned on its own facts and they do not bear any similarity to the facts of the case on hand. Moreover, in my considered view, this writ petition is premature inasmuch as the police have not filed a final report as yet under Section 173 of the Code and it would quite well be that the police may after investigation find that no offence is made out. In the event a report is filed by the police and the petitioners are charged for any offence in pursuance of such a report, the petitioners shall always be at liberty to question the proceedings initiated before the jurisdictional Magistrate by availing appropriate remedy. For the above-mentioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.No.6972 of 2008 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is also dismissed. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 25th MARCH, 2008 kvni [1] (2003) 3 Supreme Court Cases 11