HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 6636 OF 2010 AND CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 832 OF 2010 DATED 26TH JULY, 2010. BETWEEN M.Sridhar and ors ….Petitioners in Crl.P.No. 6636 of 2010. Mitapally Bhagya laxmi and ors ….Petitioners in Crl.RC.No.832 of 2010 and The Stae of AP, rep. By Public Prosecutor and anr. …Respondents in both petitions HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 6636 OF 2010 AND CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 832 OF 2010. COMMON ORDER: Aggrieved over the order dated 17.2.2010 passed in C rl.M.P.No. 88 of 2009 in C.C.No. 443 of 2005 whereby the learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-Mahila Court, Hyderabad, whereby the learned Sessions Judge conﬁrmed the order of the learned Magistrate while allowing the protest petition ﬁled by the defacto complainant against the deletion of the names of A.3 to A.5 in the charge sheet ﬁled by the respondent- police after completion of investigation, ordered to take cognizance of case against A3 to A5 also along with A.1 and A.2 under Section 498-A and 406 IPC and Secs. 4 and 6 of the DP Act, Criminal Revision Case No. 832 of 2010 is ﬁled by the petitioners/Accused Nos. 3,4, and 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that in both the cases the complaint is one and the same and the cases are also one and the same. He submitted that one case is ﬁled by way of a private complaint and other is by way of police complaint, which was investigated by the police and charge sheet was ﬁled. Further the learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that for the very same set of facts, there cannot be two complainants and the persons cannot be tried twice. This Court perused the entire record and the material available on record. It is seen from the record that the cause, allegations, period, parties are one and the same and in one case the Court took cognizance of the oﬀence on ﬁle and in another case the police investigated the case and therefore on the very same set of allegations, both can be tried together by the Court below in view of Section 210 Cr.P.C., The learned Counsel for the petitioners also agreed that both the cases i.e. CC.No. 443 of 2005 and C.C.No. 1001 of 2007, can be clubbed and tried together. Further it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have to come all the way from Bangalore to attend the case pending at Hyderabad and that the question of their identity does nor arise before the Court below and therefore their presence may be dispensed with. This Court is of the view that no prejudece will be caused to the respondents if the presence of the petitioners is dispensed with. Considering the request of the learned Counsel for the petitioners for dispensation of the presence of the petitioners before the trial Judge on the ground that the question of their identity before the Court below does not arise, this Court is inclined to pass an order. Accordingly, the presence of the petitioners before the trial Court is hereby dispensed with, except the dates on which the learned trial judge insists the presence of the petitioners and on all other dates of posting of the matter, the petitioners are permitted to represent themselves before the Court below by Counsel. With the above observation, the Criminal Petition and the Criminal Revision Case are disposed of. ----------------------------------- JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO DATED 26th JULY, 2010. Msnr.