Dr. B. Siva Sankara Rao, J.

1. The Crl. P. No. 4546 of 2014 and 4547 of 2014 are filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail by the A.3 and A.4 respectively of the Cr. No. 94 of 2010 on the file of the Trimulgherry Police Station for the offences under Section 120-A(mistakenly might have mentioned for 120-B), 405, 415, 418, 420, 463 and 464 of I.P.C. it is the State represented by the Public Prosecutor as respondent in the two bail applications before the High Court opposing the same and pending said applications, the defacto-complainant through advocate wanting to come on record filed applications vide Crl. M.P. Nos. 4382 in Crl. P. No. 4546 of 2014 and 4383 of 2014 in Crl. P. No. 4547 of 2014 (two bail applications), invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with a prayer that he may be permitted to be impleaded as 2nd respondent to the bail applications and further permitted to assist the Court as well as the Public Prosecutor in hearing of the bail applications. The learned Counsel for the accused persons supra opposed these applications by filing their counter and further requested that the permission petition has to be disposed of on merits, before taking the hearing of the two bail applications. Hence, these petitions are heard for deciding first.

2. The averments in the affidavit common in the two applications of the defacto-complainant representing by its Managing Director in nutshell are that having filed the quash proceedings by the accused persons in this Court (before another Bench) and the defacto-complainant also came on record and contesting the same, from its dismissal by order dated 22.03.2012, the same was impugned by the bail applicants before the Apex Court by special leave and those were also ended in dismissal and they filed the applications for anticipatory bail before the learned VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions. Judge at Hyderabad where also the defacto-complainant came on record and contested and the bail applications were ended in dismissal for no grounds to grant anticipatory bail and further submits that the present case involves complex facts and also voluminous record that is required to be considered and the petition filed by the accused persons substantially deals with the proceedings before the High Court in the quash proceedings that also went before the Apex Court where the defacto-complaint having participated, that the defacto-complainant being the affected person, will be in a better position to assist the Court by providing details and pointing out factual aspects of the case. Hence, prayed to implead as 2nd respondent for effective adjudication.

3. Counter (common in both the petitions) filed by the learned counsel for the respondents-accused persons reads that they raised a civil dispute and invoked Arbitration Clause (in the dealer Agreement) on 29.12.2009 and the matter is heard by Arbitrary Tribunal consisting of three retired High Court Judges and the said arbitration includes subject matter of the FIR, that a consent order was recorded by the Arbitral Tribunal on 17.03.2010 and the same is being heard and parties agreed the following terms:

"1. The claimant will return the unpaid stock consisting of 13 cars in 22.03.2010 and pay the price of 14th car assessed at Rs.39 lacs by the same date,

2. Respondent will buy back all paid stock consisting of five cars at the value at which they were supplied to Delta, subject to inspection, and claim in damages of any,

3. The claimant will not hereafter use respondent's trade mark or logo,

4. BMW will be at liberty to approach the landlord or erstwhile showroom of Delta for removal of log of BMW,

5. The claimant is directed to request M/s. Tata Capital to release to BMW amount with respect to five cars sold on 08.01.2010. On receipt of the amount from Tata Capital, BMW shall immediately refund the amount of ` 1.2 crores in lieu of invoked Bank guarantee to Delta.

The unpaid stocks referred to in the above order are the cars allegedly "