CRLP/13993/2011 of Ponnavolu Sudhakara Reddy Vs Smt. Dr.J.Geetha Reddy on 29 December 2011

ORDER:-

This petition is filed to quash the order of the Special Judge forCBI Cases at Nampally, Hyderabad, in S.R.No.3882 of 2011.

2. The petitioner, who is an Advocate, filed a private complaintbefore the Special Judge for CBI Cases at Nampally, Hyderabad totake cognizance of the offences under Sections 120-B read withSection 166, 167, 409 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(1)(c)(d), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against some of theMinisters and also the Secretaries of the Government. His contentionis that all these people have abused their power and committed acts ofirregularities. The reason for this complaint to be initiated is the factthat in a Public Interest Litigation in W.P.No.794 of 2011 andconnected batch, the High Court has directed to investigate into someof the allegations alleged in that complaint. In that case, the DivisionBench has directed the CBI to enquire into the particulars of theallegations. It is not in dispute that the investigation is still in progress. The apprehension, apparently, of the petitioner is that the personsagainst whom he proposed to file the private complaint may not bequestioned or their acts will not be considered. At this stage, it is verydifficult to accept this apprehension. Further-more, the privatecomplaint is filed against the respondents on the ground that they havecommitted corrupt practices by using their position and this fact islinked with the investigation ordered by the Division Bench to beconducted by the CBI. Therefore, there cannot be any parallel enquiryto be taken up by the CBI Court. If there are any deficiencies in theinvestigation taken up by the CBI, which wanted to be projected in thecomplaint, he can approach the Division Bench in the above Public Interest Litigation for necessary directions. But, however, thepresentation of this complaint at this stage is not warranted and itbeing premature and the allegations there being not established byany evidence supported by the complainant. Section 210 of theCriminal Procedure Code at this stage has no application. Therefore,the private complaint has been rightly rejected by the lower Court. But,however, the right of the petitioner to approach the Division Bench orto initiate any complaint after the investigation done by the CBI in casehe has got any right to proceed can be considered.

With the above observation, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

Date: 29-12-2011Note: Issue C.C. today.(B/o).INL/MR

___________________________

JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO