IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH FRIDAY THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9537 OF 2012 Between:
Rajni Mathur … Petitioner/defacto complainant V/s.
The State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by Public Prosecutor High Court of AP Hyderabad … Respondents/complainant & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner : Sri Ashok Goud Ponnam Counsel for Respondents : Public Prosecutor for R-1 Sri KV Bhanuprasad for R-2 & R-3 The court made the following: [order follows] HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No. 9537 OF 2012 O R D E R:
This Criminal Petition is filed to quash orders dated 01/06/2012 in SR.No. 2658 of 2012 of III-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad at Nampally.
2. Heard Advocate for petitioner/defacto complainant.
3. Advocate for petitioner submitted that complainant lodged a private complaint before court below and it was referred to Police for investigation, on the basis of which, Crime No.70 of 2011 was registered and the Police after completion of investigation referred the case as civil nature, against which, petitioner filed protest petition in SR.No. 2658 of 2012 and the trial court has dismissed protest petition. He submitted that plot sold by respondents 2 and 3 herein to the complainant is a non-existing property, which is clear from the information furnished under Right to Information Act and respondents 2 and 3 have cheated the complainant.
4. I have perused the material papers filed along with this criminal petition. The protest petition filed by petitioner is dated 28/03/2012, along with protest petition no documents are filed and no witnesses are cited in the protest petition.
5. As seen from the order of learned Magistrate, it appears that petitioner has received back the amount from respondents 2 and 3, which was sent by a demand draft for Rs.4,56,642=00 and as per the order of learned Magistrate only on the request of complainant the said amount was sent by demand draft to the complainant. Considering the letter addressed by complainant and final report filed by the Police, the learned Magistrate observed that there is no material at least prima facie attracting allegations of cheating. I do not find any wrong in the order of learned Magistrate. Now the contention of petitioner is that there is material and that he may be permitted to produce that material but the same cannot be permitted, because the scope of this Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. is to verify “whether the trial court has committed any error while passing orders without looking into material placed before it”. When the complainant has not produced any witnesses in support of allegations levelled in the protest petition and complaining that trial court has not considered the same cannot be accepted. Therefore, there are no grounds to invoke the jurisdiction of this court under section 482 Cr.P.C.
6. For the above reasons, this Criminal Petition is dismissed, as devoid of merits.
7. As a sequel, miscellaneous petition if any, pending shall stand closed.
JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR .
01/08/2014
I s L.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9537 OF 2012 Circulation No. Date: 01/08/2014 Court Master : I s L Computer No. 43