K RADHAKRISHNA ALIAS NARADAIAH Vs. K MOHANA MURALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Ms. Padma, Counsel representing the petitioners/A-1 and A-2 and the learned Public Prosecutor Sri Nageswar Rao.

(2.) The question raised by the learned Counsel representing the petitioners in the present Criminal Petition is when on a particular set of facts, final report filed by the Police was accepted and the crime was closed, on the self-same set of facts, a private complaint be entertained or not. The learned Counsel no doubt raised certain grounds like bar under Section 300 Cr.P.C. and also Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India. It is needless to say that the said provisions are not applicable to the facts of the case as the present case is only at the stage of taking cognizance of the complaint.

(3.) It is stated that the 1st respondent/ defacto complainant lodged complaint alleging that his wife made an attempt to commit suicide on 26-10-2001 and when he tried to save her he received burn injuries and subsequently on 30-10-2001 his wife died and pursuant thereto Crime No.139/ 2001 was registered by Pakala Police Station and thereafter the 1st respondent/complainant was arrested, remanded to judicial custody and was subsequently enlarged on bail. Several other allegations also had been narrated. The main ground raised is that on earlier occasion when a previous private complaint was forwarded to police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. the police filed a final report and the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate on the strength of the final report wherein it was stated that the complaint was false, closed the crime. The learned Counsel for the petitioner placed strong reliance on Pramatha Nath v. Saroj Ranjan and also yet anotherdecision in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v. Kali Singh and would contend that virtually the present proceedings would amount to either reviewing or recalling of the prior order accepting the final report and closing the crime earlier. The learned Counsel also maintained that this is impermissible. In view of the same inasmuch as the present complaint is based on the same cause of action it is stated that it would amount to abuse of process of law and hence the same is liable to be quashed.