DHARMAVARAPU PRASAD Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the petitioners/ accused Nos. 1 and 3 to 6 seeking stay of all further proceedings in C.C.No. 121 of 2008 on the file of the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of I class, Srikakulam, including appearance of the petitioners pending disposal of the Criminal Petition No. 14140 of 2016.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that to launch prosecution tinder Sec. 186 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short I.P.C. ), there is a bar contemplated under Sec. 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, Crimial P.C. ) unless and until a complaint is filed as defined under Sec. 2(d) Crimial P.C. It is further argued that the offence under Sec. 506 Penal Code is a non-cognisable one and the police are not vested with the powers to investigate the offence under Sec. 506 Penal Code unless the offence is one under cognisable as per First Schedule of Crimial P.C., and prayed the Court to grant limited stay in C.C.No. 121 of 2008 on the file of the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of I class, Srikakulam. It is further argued that proceedings against the petitioners are an abuse of process of law and the investigation has been conducted without any power of jurisdiction and filing of the charge sheet is untenable and is unwarranted, and prayed the Court to dispense with the appearance of the petitioners before the trial Court pending disposal of Criminal Petition No. 14140 of 2016. The learned counsel relied on a case-law reported in Paiaavula Keshavuiu Vs. State of A.P. and another (I) 2016 (2) ALT (Crl.) 74 (A.P.), wherein this Court held as follows:

(3.) On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor argued that basing on a report given by Amin working in the Principal Junior Civil Judge s Court Srikakulam, a complaint was registered against the petitioners in Crimes No. 298 of 2007 for the offences punishable under Sections 186 and 506 IPC., therefore the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners have no bearing in this case. It is further argued that after investigation is completed, the police filed the charge sheet and the Magistrate Court numbered the case as C.C.No. 121 of 2008 and it is pending disposal of the case. It is also argued that the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners can be decided by the trial Court and the petitioners waited for nine long years and filed the present petition, and therefore, prayed the Court to dismiss the petition.