These applications are filed under the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C. requesting the Court to post the matter under the caption "for being mentioned" in view of the orders passed by this Court dated 7.10.2013 in the above criminal petitions and to restore the above cases to its file.

2. This Court by its orders dated 7.10.2013 disposed of the above criminal petitions filed by the first respondent-accused directing the investing agency to complete the investigation without arresting the accused, petitioner in the above criminal petitions (A.1) ( for short "the accused") and to file final report before the concerned Court with a direction to the accused to cooperate with the investigating agency and appear before the investigating officer as and when required.

3. For the purpose of convenience the brief facts, in Crl. MP No.12112 of 2013 are adverted to.

4. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the petitioner herein-Ch.N.V.S. Reddy, Station House Officer, Banjaha Hills P.S., Hyderabad registered a case in Crime No.263/2013 against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 420, 406 read with 34 IPC. The accused filed Criminal Petition No.11331 of 2013 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings against him.

5. This Court by its order dated 7.10.2013 disposed of the Criminal Petition directing the investigating authority to complete the investigation without arresting the accused, petitioner therein, A.1 and to file its final report before the concerned court and that the accused was further directed to cooperate with the investigating authority as when required.

6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders passed by this Court, the de facto complainant has filed the above petitions on the premise that this Court passed orders without notice to him.

7. Learned counsel for the de facto complainant, 2nd respondent in the above criminal petition No.11331 of 2013, (herein after referred to as "defacto complainant") submitted that the accused has obtained orders in the above criminal petitions by playing fraud and without giving any notice to the de facto complainant. He further submitted that the order dated 7.10.2013 passed by this Court, indicates that the accused represented that prior to lodging of the complaint and regarding the same transaction, various cases have been instituted by the same complainant at different places. But the allegations/complaints made by the de facto complainant against the accused are on different offences and the same are distinct. Thus, by suppressing the facts the orders dated 7.10.2013 were obtained by the accused as if all the complaints are with regard to the same transaction. Therefore, the same are liable to be recalled on the ground that no notice was effected on the defacto complainant-2nd respondent before passing the said orders. It is also stated that out of five complaints the allegation made in the four complaints are different and distinct and another complaint is given by the Manager of the Canara Bank. Learned counsel also submits that in all the cases lodged against the accused huge amount are involved and that the de facto complainant was not given an opportunity to oppose the applications filed by the accused. It is also contended by the learned counsel that the proceedings were initiated against the accused on the basis of the complaint given by the de facto complainant and one Bank Manager, and in those circumstances, the petitioner herein ought to have been heard before passing any orders and that the accused have suppressed the material facts and also suppressed the fact of non-service of notice on the de facto complainant. The accused is absconding from the date of registration of FIR and not cooperating with the investigating authority in spite of orders of this Court. Therefore, it is submitted, the orders are liable to be recalled and the matter be restored to its original file for hearing. In support of his contentions, the learned