K. VARADHARAJULU NAIDU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.29778 of 2013 is the sole accused in C.C.No.3862 of 2013 on the file of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance on the final report filed by the respondent police for offence under Section 420 of I.P.C. Seeking to quash the said criminal proceedings, the petitioner is before this Court with the criminal original petition in Crl.O.P.No.29778 of 2013.

(2.) In the F.I.R., apart from the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.29778 of 2013, yet another person by name Mrs.Ramah @ Ramah Iyengar was arrayed as the second accused. But in the final report, the respondent police omitted her. On receipt of notice from the learned Magistrate, the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.29366 of 2013 / the defacto complainant filed a protest petition opposing the omission of the said accused and the same was treated as a private complaint. But the learned Magistrate simply passed a one line order in Crl.M.P.No.4862 of 2013 dated 16.08.2013, to the following effect:

(3.) Since common issues were raised in both these cases, they were heard together and are disposed of by means of this common order.