RAMAN SRIKANTH Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is accused No.3 in Crime No.274 of 2014 on the file of KPHB Colony Police Station. The 2nd respondent is the de facto complainant. A complaint was lodged by the de facto complainant before the XIX Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Miyapur against 3 persons including the petitioner herein. The offences alleged against them are under Section 420 IPC and Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC. The Court referred the same under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C to Police for investigation. On receipt of the complaint from the Court through reference under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., First Information Report (FIR) was registered as Crime No.274 of 2014. The petitioner seeks for the quashment of the same.

(2.) SRI T.Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, contended that there was an abnormal delay in invoking the jurisdiction of the Court, so much so, the FIR deserves to be quashed. He further submitted that the dispute is a civil dispute and that criminal law cannot be invoked. It is also alleged that the Arbitral Tribunal headed by Honble Sri Justice D.P. Wadhwa, former Judge of the Supreme Court, is seized of the dispute and that it would be unjust for the 2nd respondent to simultaneously invoke the criminal process. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contended that the allegations prima facie did not constitute any offence as against the petitioner, that the learned Magistrate mechanically referred the case to Police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C and that Police violated the mandate under Section 41 -A Cr.P.C by arresting the petitioner.

(3.) ON the other hand, Sri D.V.Sitharam Murthy, learned Senior Counsel representing the 2nd respondent/ de facto complainant, claimed that it is the petitioner who is the architect of the fraud and that he being the alterego of the 1st accused, it would be appropriate to permit Police to proceed with the investigation. He pointed out that the petitioner was not the author or signatory of the MoU and that his role however is quite evident from the complaint. The learned Senior Counsel for the 2nd respondent further submitted that it is not appropriate to scuttle the investigation and that in the event the petitioner is innocent of the offences levelled against him, Police would not file a charge -sheet against him.