N SRIDHAR Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 662 of 2011 on the file of the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The second respondent herein filed a complaint under Section 200 read with 190 Cr.P.C. before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate against the petitioner herein, for the offence under Section 166 IPC alleging as follows.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the PML Act, 2002 requires that the Authorized Officer conducts enquiry only after a report has been forwarded by police under Section 173 Cr.P.C. in respect of a scheduled offence; that the Enforcement Directory cannot investigate into the schedule offences under Part B of the Schedule; that immediately after receipt of the complaint from the second respondent, the petitioner enquiry with L.B. Nagar police with regard to details of the First Information Report, and the police informed that no offence has been made out and they are going to file a final report to that effect; that it is not a case where the court directed the petitioner to register Enforcement Crime Information Report (ECIR), and so, the petitioner did not disobey any direction of law; that continuation of the impugned proceedings is nothing but abuse of process of court.

(3.) On the other hand, the second respondent, party-in-person, contended that under Section 44(b) of the PML Act, 2002, the petitioner is required to lodge a complaint before the Special Court for the purpose of taking cognizance for which the accused is committed to it for trial; that along with the complaint dated 7-2-2011, the second respondent also furnished the required information i.e. the complaint and also the First Information Report, and that after receipt of the same, the petitioner is bound to register a case and investigate into the same, or at any rate, he can seek permission from the court to conduct investigation as the Enforcement Directorate followed the procedure under the Manual in respect of RC No. 18(A) of 2011 of CBL Hyderabad, and therefore, the petitioner disobeyed the directions of law, and hence, there are no grounds to quash the impugned proceedings.