PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. R PURUSHOTHAM RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Criminal appeal is filed by the State against the acquittal of the respondent under Section 420 IPC. read with 511 PC. and the Crl. petition is filed by the State and de facto complainant to quash the notice of the learned IX M.M. Hyderabad, in Crl. MP.No. 1061/90 in C.C No. 230/89 dt. 12-9-90. The brief facts of the case are that on 16-4-88 a complaint was received by the Sub-Inspector of Police stating that the accused has submitted 22 application forms on 22-2-88 to get sanction of scholorships to the students claiming that the said students were staying in Priyadarshini M.P.H. Training Institute at Parlakhemudiof Orissa State., that on verification it was revealed that there was no such Institution at Parlakhemudi in Orissa State and thus a case in Cr.No. 93/ 88 was registered under Section 420 I.P.C. Duly taking into account the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 4 and the other material evidence, the learned Magistrate held that no case has been made out. Even the Exs. P.1 to P.3 bear no initial of any officer of the Directorate of the Social Welfare. The application forms alleged to have ben submitted by the accused were also not produced. So, the reasoning given by the learned Magistrate is perfectly justified and does not warrant any interference. In the last para the learned Magistrate observed as follows:

(2.) Thus it appears that the show cause notice was posted to 16-8-90 and it appears that the List Witness No. 1 was not present. What reasons prompted him not to present is not known from the record. When a show-cause notice has been given by a competent Magistrate, it is for that person to offer his explanation. It appears that the very same person, i.e., K.R. Paramahamsa, has filed along with the State to quash the notice of the learned Magistrate. Quashing of proceedings are meant when there is gross abuse of the process of the court. The petitioner has also obtained interim stay including the payment of compensation if any orders are passed in pursuance of the show-cause notice. This order was obtained denying to give compensation. So the conduct that has been exhibited by the petitioner cannot be appreciated. So, this petition i.e., Crl.P. 1664/90 is dismissed. However, the compensation that has been awarded has to be quashed and the proceedings have to be commenced when the show-cause notice has been issued, uninfluenced by any observations made in this judgment. Section 482 proceedings cannot be issued giving shelter to a person who has not approached the Magistrate when he was issued a show-cause notice.

(3.) With the above observations, the Criminal appeal and the Criminal petition are dismissed.