P URMILA Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed by the petitioner/A1 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.682 of 2004 on the file of XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, for the offences under Sections 467, 471, 177 & 420 IPC read with Sections 82 and 83 of Indian Registration Act, 1908, against her.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner/A1 is that initially, on a complaint lodged by the Sub -Registrar, a case in Cr.No.223 of 1997 under Sections 82 and 83 of Indian Registration Act, 1908, was registered against her and A2. After due investigation, the respondent -police filed a final report on 31.12.1997 stating that the allegations mentioned in the complaint are civil in nature. Subsequently, on the basis of the complaint given by Sri P. Om Rao, in 2003, the police filed a requisition before the Court below seeking permission to reopen the case for further investigation. By order dated 07.11.2003, the Court below granted permission to the police concerned to investigate into the matter and to file charge sheet. After completion of investigation, the police filed the charge sheet and the case was taken on file as C.C.No.682 of 2004 against A1 and A2 for the offences under Sections 467, 471, 177 & 420 IPC read with Sections 82 and 83 of Indian Registration Act, 1908. Thereupon, A1 and A2 filed Crl.M.P.No.5092 of 2004 seeking to discharge them from the alleged offences on the ground that the order passed by the learned Magistrate for further investigation on the same set of facts is erroneous in law and the complainant being the Sub -Registrar did not file any protest petition against the final report. The said discharge petition was dismissed on 30.12.2005. Now, the petitioner filed the present criminal petition seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.682 of 2004.

(3.) AS rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that when once the Court accepted the final report filed by the police after due investigation, it cannot pass an order to reinvestigate the matter after a lapse of six years from the final report dated 31.12.1997. The allegations made against A1 and A2 are civil in nature as mentioned in the final report filed by the police after due investigation. Therefore, the trial Court ought not to have passed the order for reinvestigation into the matter.