THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION Nos. 2662 AND 4189 OF 2012 Dated: 07.07.2014 CRIMINAL PETITION No. 2662 OF 2012 Between:
Ramesh Agarwal, S/o late Satyanarayana Agarwal … Petitioner/Accused And The State of A.P. rep. by Public Prosecutor and another … Respondents CRIMINAL PETITION No. 4189 OF 2012 Between:
Anand Agarwal @ Anand Gupta, S/o Ram Kumar … Petitioner/Accused And The State of A.P. through the Public Prosecutor and another … Respondents The Court made the following :
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION Nos. 2662 AND 4189 OF 2012 COMMON ORDER:
These criminal petitions are filed to quash FIR in crime No.6 of 2011 of Chevella Police Station, Ranga Reddy District for alleged offences under Sections 120-B, 406, 420, 468, 471 and 506 of IPC; petitioner in Crl.P.No.2662 of 2012 is A2 and petitioner in Crl.P.No.4189 of 2012 is A3 in the above referred crime.
2. Heard both sides.
3. Advocate for petitioners submitted that on a similar set of facts, another report was given, which was registered as crime No.25 of 2011 of Moinabad police station, in that case, this complainant was a witness and he gave a statement to the police under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. and ultimately, that case ended in acquittal and therefore, continuation of present proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law. He further submitted that this dispute is purely of civil nature and in earlier crime No.25 of 2011 of Moinabad police station, after considering the very same facts, these petitioners names were dropped in the remand report and therefore, the objections of the petitioners be considered and the proceedings be quashed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that investigation is in progress and it is pending due to non-apprehension of the petitioners.
5. I have perused the material papers filed along with the quash petitions.
6. The main ground urged on behalf of the petitioners is since the defacto-complainant herein as a witness before the police in crime No.25 of 2011 has not whispered anything against these two petitioners and as that matter ended in acquittal, the proceedings have to be quashed.
7. As seen from the record, crime No.25 of 2011 has ended in a compromise before the Lok-Adalat between the complainant therein and accused therein. Admittedly, the defacto-complainant herein was not a party to the said Lok-Adalat proceedings. Now, in this case what has to be seen is whether the complaint and the allegations therein would attract any offence prima facie against the petitioners and if not they are entitled for quashing of the proceedings against them. As seen from the complaint and FIR, there are specific allegations against the petitioners alleging cheating and fabrication of documents. These aspects can be verified only if a full-fledged investigation is conducted. Now according to the Public Prosecutor, the matter is still under the investigation. This 161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of defacto- complainant recorded in the earlier crime No.25 of 2011 registered on the complaint of Mr.Haribabu at best can be an omission or contradiction which has to be considered during trial but on that ground FIR cannot be quashed.
7. Considering the facts of the case and submissions of the Advocate for petitioners, I am of the view that since there are specific allegations in the complaint which require investigation, the proceedings cannot be quashed. For these reasons, both the petitions are dismissed directing the police to expedite the investigation.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any filed in this criminals petitions, shall stand closed.
S. RAVI KUMAR, J 7th July, 2014. ssp