HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.3514, 3515, 3516, 3517, 3518, 3519, 3520, 3521 & 3522 OF 2003 DATE: 02-09-2011 BETWEEN: Mohd. Faizuddin. - - - Petitioner/ A-1. AND The State of A.P., Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another. - - - Respondents/ Complainant. This Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.3514, 3515, 3516, 3517, 3518, 3519, 3520, 3521 & 3522 OF 2003 COMMON ORDER: As the subject matter involved in all these nine (9) Criminal Petitions and the parties involved therein are also one and the same, these petitions are taken up for disposal by way of this Common Order. These Criminal Petitions are filed by the Petitioner/Accused No.1 (For short, ‘A-1’) under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings in Crime No.11 of 1994 and Calender Case Nos.3 to 11 of 2000, pending on the file of XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. 2. Whereas the Petitioner is A-1, the Respondent No.1 is the complainant and the Respondent No.2 is the de-facto complainant in all the Calender Cases. For the sake of convenience, I refer the parties as arrayed in the Calender Cases. 3. Heard the learned counsel for A-1 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the Respondents-State. 4. The facts set out in the petitions in brief are as follows : Originally the de-facto complainant filed complaint seeking to punish A-1 along with three others i.e. A-2 to A-4 registered in Crime No.11 of 1994 for offences punishable under Sections 420 and 120-B of I.P.C. on the ground that A-1 cheated the de-facto complainant to a tune of Rs.17,33,960/- by way of issuing 35 cheques and got registered sale deeds in the names of his nominees i.e. A-2 to A-4 in the Case. As there was no progress in the investigation of the case before Shamsheergunj P.S. the de-facto Complainant filed Writ Petition No.1011 of 1996 before this Court seeking to transfer the case (In Crime No.11 of 1994) to C.B.C.I.D. for investigation and the Writ Petition was accordingly allowed. Aggrieved by the said order, A-1 filed Writ Appeal No.814 of 1996 and it was allowed on 16-07-1996 by the Division Bench of this Court giving certain directions with regards to the procedure to be followed on a report submitted by the Investigating Agency before the Magistrate. But surprisingly in stead of filing protest petitions, the de-facto complainant had chosen to file private complainants against A-1 and others for the same offences before the Magistrate which were referred to Shamsheerjung P.S. for investigation and they were registered in Crime Nos.7 to 15 of 1997 on its file. Later on filed Criminal Petitions Nos.292 to 296 of 1997 and 760 to 763 of 1997 for quashing those proceedings and this Court disposed off the petitions directing the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders on the final report submitted in Crime No.11 of 1994 keeping in view of the directions given in the Writ Appeal No.814 of 1996 by this Court. But, in stead of complying with the directions the police took up and completed the investigation of the cases and filed charge sheets in all the cases for which C.C. numbers were given. Hence, all the Calender Cases are liable to be quashed. 5. In the Writ Appeal it was observed : “Therefore, it is clear from the observations of the Division Bench the Courses open to the Magistrate whether to reject the police report and take cognizance on the basis of the materials collected by the police in the course of investigation; to order re-investigation or to proceed on the basis of the complaint of the informant. The final report is now available before the Court and the parties have to seek appropriate remedies basing on the final report submitted by the investigating Agency keeping in view of the directions given by the Division Bench in the Writ Appeal. Rama Krishna Reddy filed fresh complaints and they were referred to the police for investigation. As already he filed complaint before the police on the said set of facts and the Police registered a case in Crime No.11 of 1994 and the police submitted final report, hence the Magistrate referring fresh complaints to the police again redundant as the police have already investigated and filed final report on the same facts. Hence, the reference of the complaints to the police, at that stage, without considering the final report is unwarranted and liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside. The learned XIV Metropolitan Magistrate is directed to pass appropriate orders on the final report submitted in crime No.11 of 1994 and also considering the nine complaints filed by the complainant, Rama Krishna Reddy in Sr.Nos.2694, 2697, 2700, 2703, 2705, 2708, 2711, 2714 and 2720 of 1996, treating the said complaints pending before him for consideration, keeping in view the directions of the Division Bench in W.A. No.814 of 1996.” 6. Now, It is represented by the learned Public Prosecutor that the conditions imposed by this Court in W.A. No.814 of 1996 were not complied with. Without complying the conditions incorporated in the Writ Appeal, the question of further investigation in the cases and filing corresponding charge sheets would not arise at all. Therefore, the subsequent proceedings are to be quashed. In the result, all the nine Criminal Petitions are allowed quashing the proceedings against Petitioner/A-1 in the Calender Case Nos.3 to 11 of 2000, pending on the file of XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, with a further direction to the learned Magistrate to comply with the conditions imposed by this Court in the Writ Appeal No.814 of 1996 along with the observations while disposing of the Criminal Petition Nos.292 to 296 of 1997 and 760 to 763 of 1997. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dated: 02-09-2011. Dsh. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY 238 CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.3514, 3515, 3516, 3517, 3518, 3519, 3520, 3521 & 3522 OF 2003 September, 02, 2011 DSH