IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD SATURDAY THE TWENTYNINETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNAMOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7387 OF 2008 Between: Smt. Surekha Devii Jalan … Petitioners-A2 V/s. The State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by its Public Prosecutor High Court of A.P. Hyderabad & Anr. … Respondents-Complainant Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri N. Siva Reddy Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : Addl.Public Prosecutor Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Sri G. Vijay Babu The Court made the following : (Order follows next page). THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNAMOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7387 OF 2008 O R D E R : 1. This Criminal Petition is filed to quash Proceedings in CC.No.400 of 2007 on the file of the Court of Additional Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, Guntur district, so far as the Petitioner/A-2 (For short, A-2) is concerned. 2. A private complaint was filed by the second Respondent/de- facto complainant in the case (For short, the de-facto complainant) for offences punishable under sections 193, 196, 199, 206, 421, 423 and 424 IPC against A-1 and A-2 in the case before the court and it was referred to the Police of Tadepalli for investigation and consequently it was registered as Crime No.17 of 2006 on their file and after the investigation of the case the police filed the corresponding charge sheet which in fact was registered as C.C. No.400 of 2007 on the file of the said Court. 3. The case of the prosecution is as follows : The de-facto complainant and A-1 are the natives of Undavalli village of Tadepalli Mandal, Guntur district. In connection with certain dues in their business transactions, the de-facto complainant obtained a cheque from A-1 but it was dishonoured when presented before concerned forum. Thereafter the de-facto complainant filed complaint registered as CC.No.238 of 2005 for offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against A-1 on the file of the Court Additional Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, which ended in the conviction of A-1 with a direction to A-1 to pay him compensation. 4. A-2 claims that the defacto complainant filed Crl.MP.No. 1338 of 2005 in CC.No.238 of 2005 seeking recovery of certain amount of compensation and attach certain property in that petition. A-1 filed counter- affidavit stating that the property attached for the recovery of compensation was already got sold by the Union Bank of India for non payment of loan amount through a civil court at Guntur, whereas in fact he (A2) purchased it without information about the attachment obtained by the second respondent. Further thereafter the defacto complainant filed private complaint registered as Crime number 17/2006 on the file of Tadepalli police station for various offences including offences punishable under Sections 193, 196, 197, 199 and 206 I.P.C. alleging that A-1 had given false evidence in the judicial proceedings and committed those offences and later the corresponding charge sheet was filed. It is further claimed that as he (A2) purchased the property, in dispute before the civil court, Guntur her name is shown as A-2 in the complaint. 5. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner (A2) that by order dated 13-7-2006 this Court in Crl.P.No.920 of 2006 quashed the FIR in crime No.17 of 2006 of Tadepalli Police Station in respect of sections 193, 197, 196, 199 and 206 IPC and even though the said order was passed the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance of those offences also subsequent to the filing of charge sheet before him, which therefore, is not tenable. 6. The learned Addl.Public Prosecutor has not opposed the criminal petition. 7. The point for consideration is whether there are sufficient grounds to quash the proceedings in the above calender case. 8. In fact the order passed by this Court in Crl.P.No. 926 of 2006 is to the said effect. It was filed when the case was at crime stage. When such an order was passed, it was not open for the learned Magistrate to take cognizance of the offences punishable under section 193, 197, 196, 199 and 206 of IPC also. Hence, the proceedings in CC.No.400 of 2007 on the file of the Court of Additional Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, Guntur district are liable to be quashed to that extent. 9. In the result, the criminal petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. ___________________________________ JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY. 29-10-2011 I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7387 OF 2008 CIRCULATION No. 31 Date:29-10-2011 Court Master: I s L Computer No. 43