The vs Unknown
2021 Latest Caselaw 3437 AP

        HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

                    MAIN CASE No.: Crl.P. No.5096 of 2021

                                PROCEEDING SHEET

Sl.                                                                           Office
       DATE                               ORDER
No                                                                            Note

1.    08.09.2021 CMR, J
                8




                                  Crl.P. No.5096 of 2021

                       Learned Additional Public Prosecutor takes notice
                for 1st respondent/State and requests time to obtain

instructions.

Issue notice to 2nd respondent returnable in four (04) weeks.

________ CMR, J

I.A.No.1 of 2021

The petitioner is accused in Crime No.324 of 2018 of III Town Police Station, Eluru, West Godavari District. On a report lodged by the 2nd respondent, a case in the above crime for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "I.P.C.") was registered against the petitioner.

The petitioner primarily seeks quash of the said F.I.R. on the ground that earlier on the same facts, the de facto complainant has filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short "N.I. Act") in the criminal Court and the said case ended in acquittal and on the basis of the same facts, that the present F.I.R. was registered alleging cheating and breach of trust, after said case under Section 138 of N.I. Act ended in acquittal.

The petitioner has also produced a copy of the Judgment in C.C.No.97 of 2016 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Eluru and it is evident from it that the case under Section 138 of N.I. Act ended in acquittal against the petitioner herein as per the Judgment dated 15-11-2016. Thereafter, the present F.I.R. came to be registered on 21-12-2018. Therefore, the matter requires examination in the main criminal petition whether the findings given by the criminal Court in the said C.C.No.97 of 2016 renders the present criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 420 and 409 of I.P.C. unsustainable under law or not and whether the F.I.R. registered against the petitioner is liable to be quashed or not.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that as per the Judgment of the Honourable Apex Court rendered in the case of Dr. Lakshman v. The State of Karnataka1 that "even though the prosecution was initiated under Section 138 of N.I. Act, that there is no bar to prosecute the accused for the offence punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C."

These are all the matters to be examined in the main criminal petition in view of the above discussion.

Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the investigation shall go on and the same cannot be interdicted as the entire case set up by the petitioner now is purely on a legal aspect, which is to be considered in the main criminal petition as discussed above.

However, this Court is of the considered view that there shall be a direction to the Investigation Officer not to file the charge sheet until further orders as the main legal aspect involved in this case is to be examined in the criminal petition, which is filed for quash of the F.I.R.

Therefore, there shall be a direction to the

2019 (9) SCC 677 Investigation Officer while proceeding with the investigation, not to file the charge sheet in the trial Court until further orders.

________ CMR, J ARR