IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENT FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.5233 AND 5231 OF 2009 CRIMINAL PETITION No.5231 OF 2009: BETWEEN: Sandri Sai Kumar S/o. Venkatesh …. Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh, Through Station House Officer, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad and another. …. Respondents CRIMINAL PETITION No.5233 OF 2009: Sandri Sai Kumar S/o. Venkatesh …. Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh, Through Station House Officer, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad and another. …. Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU CRIMINAL PETITON Nos.5233 AND 5231 OF 2009 ORDER: Daughter is the de facto complainant in crime No.364 of 2009 of Malkajgiri Police Station of Cyberabad got registered that crime for offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471, 469 and 506 IPC. Mother is the complainant in Crime No.365 of 2009 of the same Police Station got that crime registered for offences punishable under Sections 420, 471 and 507 IPC. Crime No.364 of 2009 was registered on 09-07-2009 whereas Crime No.365 of 2009 was registered on 10-07- 2009. The petitioner herein is the accused in both the crimes. According to the petitioner, he married the daughter by name Manasa and subsequently Manasa married Khammam Vijaysimha Reddy as her 2nd husband and again married one Sudarshan as her 3rd husband. It is also alleged by the petitioner that Manasa obtained blank papers from him with his signatures and is threatening him with false complaints against him. With those allegations, the petitioner gave report to the same Malkajgiri police against Manasa and her family members for offences punishable under Sections 494, 420 and 506 IPC. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that as counter blast to the said crime No.309 of 2009, Manasa and her mother Sarswathi Devi gave reports in crime Nos.364 of 2009 and 365 of 2009 against him. 2. Allegations in both the crimes against the petitioner are one and the same to the effect that the petitioner forged an agreement for sale containing the signature of one D. Anil Kumar in respect of Flat No.403 and obtained loan from ICICI Bank and that when ICICI Bank gave the amount by way of Banker’s Cheque in the name of Anil Kumar, the petitioner opened a bank account in the name of Anil Kumar with the petitioner’s own photograph and by impersonation and by forging signatures of Anil Kumar and had withdrawn the amount covered by banker’s cheque of ICICI Bank through UCO Bank account of Anil Kumar. 3. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that neither Anil Kumar is the complainant nor UCO Bank nor ICICI Bank and that therefore, crimes registered at the instance of Manasa and her mother Saraswathi Devi are not maintainable. When a serious fraud is alleged to have been committed by the petitioner inviting penal liability for offences under Indian Penal Code, which are cognizable offences, there is no bar for a third party to pass on the information to the police for registration of the crimes and for investigation of the same and for booking the accused for those serious crimes. But, at the same time, the police are not expected to register two separate crimes in respect of the same set of offences arising out of the same transaction. When once the police have registered crime No.364 of 2009, the police should not have registered the second crime No.365 of 2009 based on the same set of allegations. If Saraswathi Devi came to the police station with the same set of allegations, then the police should have examined her as the second witness in crime No.364 of 2009, which was already registered. Registration of crime No.365 of 2009, in the circumstances is an abuse of process of law. The only extra offence alleged in crime No.365 of 2009 is one under Section 507 IPC, which is non-cognizable offence. It is not as if threatening SMSs were given to Saraswathi Devi, though such messages were stated to have given to Manasa. Therefore, Saraswathi Devi cannot maintain a complaint or report for the offence under Section 507 IPC said to have been committed against Manasa. 5. Having regard to serious allegations of forgery, fraud, impersonation and embezzlement alleged in crime No.364 of 2009, it cannot be said that it is only a counter blast for crime No.309 of 2009. 6. Criminal Petition No.5233 of 2009: In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. 7. Criminal Petition No.5231 of 2009: In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing FIR in Crime No.365 of 2009 of Malkajgiri Police Station, Cyberabad. ___________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU, J February 24, 2010. KTL