K KRISHNA RAO Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners who are an accused in C.C.No. 120/2000 on the file of XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad invoke the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings.

(2.) A brief resume of background of facts is necessary. 2nd respondent herein filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.PC before the XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad who in turn forwarded the same to police for investigation. The police received the complaint on 26-4-1997 and registered a case in Cr.No. 127/97 under Sections 120(B), 406, 418, 420, 199. 200, 177,181, 169, 423, 426 and 511 IPC. After the investigation, the police have submitted a final report stating that the case is of civil nature. It appears that the police have served a notice on the defacto-complainant. It appears that the learned Magistrate closed the matter by accepting the final report of police. Thereafter, a protest petition was presented by the defacto-complainant. 2nd respondent presented in Crl.MP.663/ 2000 in Cr.No. 127/97 praying the Court to take up the protest petition and dispose of the same in accordance with law. The learned Magistrate set aside the earlier order passed by him after recording the sworn statement of defacto complainant and another witness by name R.Ratnakumari and tookup the case on file for the offence under Sections 420 and 120(B) IPC and issued summons to the petitioners. The said order has been passed on 18-2-2000. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has assailed the said order on the ground that the Magistrate has no power to review his own order passed earlier and seeks for quashing of the proceedings.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision reported in State of Kerala v M.M.Manikantan Nair, AIR 2001 SC 2145. He has also placed reliance on another decision reported in Bhagawant Singh v. Commissioner of Police and another, (1985) 2 SCC 537. The learned Public Prosecutor contends that since no final orders have been passed in the private complaint presented before the Court, the Court has got jurisdiction inspite of accepting the police report and closed the matter. She further contends that before accepting the police report, the defacto-complainant has to be heard.