T. Sunil Chowdary, J.

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the order dated 29.8.2016 as well as the proceedings in CCSR No.958 of 2016 in Crime No.11/ACB-CR-1- HYD/2015 on the file of the Court of the Principal Special Judge for SPE and ACB cases, Hyderabad (the Special Court/the Special Judge).

Pleadings of the petitioner

2. The petitioner filed the present petition contending that the second respondent, who is a Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) representing Mangalagiri Constituency in Andhra Pradesh, belongs to YSR Congress Party, and who has no connection with Crime No.11/ACB-CR-1-HYD/2015 on the file of ACB Police Station, City Range-I, Hyderabad (neither informant nor a witness), filed the private complaint (CCSR No.958 of 2016) against the petitioner before the Special Court on 08.8.2016. The complaint was filed basing on the same allegations in the above Crime, in which a charge sheet had been filed on 27.7.2015. It is pertinent to note that the complaint does not disclose about the filing of the charge sheet in the Crime. The impugned order dated 29.8.2016 passed by learned Special Judge in CCSR No.958 of 2016 directing the ACB to conduct thorough investigation and file report under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., is legally not sustainable, as the power under section 156(3) Cr.P.C., is not available to post cognizance stage i.e., after filing of charge sheet. If the impugned order is allowed to stand, it would result in an anomalous situation of registration of second First Information Report (FIR), in connection with the same incident. The alleged incident is relating to the elections to the Legislative Council of the State of Telangana for which the second respondent is no way concerned. The second respondent filed the complaint, as a weapon, to wreak vengeance against the petitioner. The second respondent has no locus standi to file the private complaint, especially, with a request to invoke the provisions of Section 210 Cr.P.C., as he is neither a victim nor an aggrieved person. The relief under Section 210 Cr.P.C., cannot be granted, as it mandates pre-existence of a private complaint before the Magistrate, which is not the case herein. The second respondent has not followed the procedure contemplated under the Cr.P.C., in filing the complaint; therefore, the complaint is not maintainable.

3. The complaint was not supported by affidavit. The second respondent filed the complaint with a prayer to take cognizance of his complaint and to proceed further in terms of Section 210 Cr.P.C., whereas the learned Special Judge ordered investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., which is contrary to the relief sought by the second respondent. Mere endorsement of the learned Special Judge that he has gone through the complaint, documents and heard the complainant is not sufficient to come to a conclusion that he has applied his mind at the time of passing the impugned order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The learned Special Judge passed the impugned order without applying his judicial mind to the facts of the case and therefore, the order is not sustainable under law.

4. The petitioner has not committed any offence much less the offence as alleged by the second respondent. The complaint does not disclose any cognisable offence either to take it on file or to refer it to the ACB for investigation. The allegations made in the complaint are vague, untenable and false. In Criminal Petition No.5520 of 2015 filed by Jerusalem Mathai (A.4), this Court, by order dated 03.6.2016, quashed the proceedings against A.4 in Crime No.11/ACB-CR-1-HYD/2015. As per the observations made and findings arrived at by this Court in Criminal Petition No.5520 of 2016, there is no criminal conspiracy in this case; therefore, the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (the PC Act) has no application to the facts and circumstances of the case (which judgment, though challenged before the Hon'ble apex court, is not stayed or