R SATYANARAYANA Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners seek for setting aside the orders in Crl.M.P.No.2207 of 2012 in C.C.No.382 of 2008 on the file of the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad and for their discharge from C.C.No.382 of 2008. Through a very cryptic order, the learned IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, dismissed Crl.M.P.No.2207 of 2012. Hence, this revision.

(2.) THE petitioners 1 and 2 are man and his wife. The 1st petitioner is a Medical Practitioner and a businessman. He is involved in several cases before this Court. He conducts cases as a Party -in -Person; no exception to the present case, which was conducted by him as a Party -in -Person. The 2nd petitioner, who is the wife of the 1st petitioner, however, is represented by a counsel. Albeit notice was served upon the 4th respondent -Association, no one represented it.

(3.) THE 4th respondent -Association laid a complaint before Nallakunta Police Station and also filed a complaint before the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad. The complaint to Police was registered as First Information Report in Crime No.94 of 2008 under Sections 448 and 506 read with Section 120 -B, IPC. The petitioners sought for their discharge through Crl.M.P.No.2207 of 2012.