APHC010347102022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION No. 5167 of 2022 Between: Komarina Divya Bhavani ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND Komarina Satyanarayana Murthy ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. N SIVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. M S R SASHI BHUSHAN The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the Petitioner/de facto Complainant seeking quashment of the Order dated 17.06.2022 passed in Crl.M.P.No.302 of 2022 in CC No.483 of 2018 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramachandrapuram. Heard Sri N.Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Sri B.S.S.Kumar, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 3 and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.4/State. Perused the material on record. 2 Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner herein is the de facto Complainant who filed a private complaint against the respondent Nos.1 to3 arraying them as A.1 to A.3. After registration of the case and after completion of investigation, Police filed charge sheet vide CC No.483 of 2018. In the said case, Petitioner/de facto Complainant filed a petition under Section 173(8) of the Code vide Crl.M.P.No.302 of 2022 seeking a direction to the police to conduct further investiggat6ion for collecting evidence to prove the charge under Section 468 IPC. The Learned Magistrate dismissed the said Petition. Questioning the same the present Criminal Petition has been filed. Learned counsel would submit that at the time of filing charge sheet, the Police could not collect the correct information regarding the offence under Section 468 of IPC and that an opportunity may be given to the Prosecution for conducting further investigation. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 3 vehemently opposed the Criminal Petition and would submit that Complainant as P.W.1 deposed before the Court that the complainant elicited some important evidence in cross-examination only to demolish the defence and to fill up the lacunas of the prosecution. Crl.M.P. and the Learned Magistrate rightly dismissed the Petition and that there are no grounds for quashment of the order impugned. 3 Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor supported the case of respondents 1 to 3. Considering the submissions and a fair look at the impugned Order, as rightly put by learned counsel for respondent No.2, the impugned Order is on correct lines. This Court does not feel any necessity warranting interference of this Court. Complainant as P.W.1 deposed before the Court disowning her signature on the complaint to that of her admitted signatures in her bank account papers. Further, Accused and complainant are close relatives. The matter is at mid-trial and that the present Crl.M.P. filed against the prosecution is bereft of any details seeking further investigation. In that view, the Petition lacks merit and deserves dismissal. For the aforementioned premises, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, the Petitioner is at liberty to work out her remedies according to law before the Trial Court. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Mjl/* 4 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.No. 5167 of 2022 23.01.2025 Mjl/*