MOHMMED GOUSE PASHA Vs. TUMMALA VENKATA KRISHNA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, who is A1 in C.C. No. 1184 of 2002 on the file of the VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada and who along with three others is alleged to have committed the offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 420, 468 and 471 read with Section 34, IPC, filed this petition seeking to quash the proceedings in the said C.C. No. 1184 of 2002.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are as follows : Initially C.C. No. 546 of 2000 i.e., a private complaint and C.C. No. 706 of 2001 i.e., a police case on the file of the III Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada were transferred to the VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada as per the orders passed by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada and on such transfer, they were renumbered as C.C. No. 1184 of 2002 and C.C. No. 1183 of 2002 respectively. Originally, the III Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada clubbed both the cases under Section 210(2), Cr. P.C. as the subject-matter, the accused and the complainant are one and the same. By the time of transfer of the said cases to the VI Metropolitan Magistrate, since the accused No. 2 was in judicial custody as under trial prisoner, he made a representation that he was unable to engage counsel to represent his case. A Counsel was engaged as Legal Aid on behalf of A2 in both the matters. As Al and A3 in C.C. No. 1183 of 2002 and Al & A4 in C.C. No. 1184 of 2002 were not coming forward to dispose of the cases, the cases against A2 are split up and renumbered as C.C. No. 7 of 2003 and C.C. No. 8 of 2003 and disposed of on 30-1-2003 whereby A2 was convicted. After disposal of cases against A2, the petitioner/A1 filed a petition under Section 311 Cr. P.C. before the VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada for further cross-examination of the complainant in both the cases as the complainant is one and the same in the police case as well as private complaint and the same was dismissed and confirmed by the Sessions Judge in appeal and later, the petitioner preferred a revision before this Court in Criminal R C. No. 107 of 2003 and the same was allowed by this Court on 29-1-2003. As per the directions issued in the said Criminal Revision, the witnesses were cross-examined and the matter was posted for arguments. At that stage, the petitioner filed the present criminal petition and obtained stay of further proceedings, on 17-11-2003. Thereafter, the matter went on several adjournments.

(3.) It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on the report given by R.1. Crime No. 556 of 1998 was registered for the offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 420, 468, 471 read with Section 34, IPC. When the investigation was in progress, the 1st respondent filed a private complaint on 7-4-2000 on the file of the III Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, in which statements of four witnesses were recorded and after recording the statements of four witnesses, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the same against A1 to A4 in C.C. No. 546 of 2000. He further contends that the Police after investigation into the Crime No. 556 of 1998 filed a charge-sheet and the same was taken cognizance on 29-10-2001 in C.C. No. 706 of 2001. Since the Magistrate did not follow the procedure as contemplated under the Criminal Procedure Code, did not frame a charge in the private complaint and did not follow the procedure under Section 313, Cr. P.C. the proceedings are liable to be quashed.