ORDER :

Subhendu Samanta, J.

This is an application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C (Section 528 B.N.S.S) to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.808 of 2024, on the file of the learned Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupathi registered for the offences under Section 193, 196, 199, 200, 211, 120B, 384, 420, 421, 422, 465, 109 read with 34 IPC.

2. To understand the entire gamut of this matter, it is necessary to demonstrate chronology of the facts and the litigations pending between the parties.

i. Initially, mother of 3^rd respondent filed a complaint against 1^st petitioner and his wife, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act 1988, with allegations that A1 by exploiting his position as Chief Manager lured her family to lend Rs.50,00,000/- on 08.03.2010 and 13.06.2010 for their real estate investment and business against promissory note to repay with interest at 24% p.a., and also by way of mortgage of three title deds with an undertaking not to alienate the properties untill the discharge of the promissory note jointly executed by A1 and A2. Thereafter A1 and A2 failed to repay the debt, after repeated demands jointly issued a cheque bearing No.06643 dated 08.09.2011 for Rs.25,00,000/- drawn on Indian Bank, Barkatpura, Hyderabad Branch towards partial discharge of the debt. The same was presented for collection and on the dishonour of said cheque, mother of 3^rd respondent, P.V.Rajyalakshmi, was constrained to intitiate proceedings under Section 138 read with 142 of N.I.Act, which was taken on the file as S.T.C.No.441 of 2012 on the file of the learned II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tirupathi Chittoor District. Later it was remembered as S.T.C.No.83 of 2013 on the file of the learned V Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tirupathi.

ii. Thereafter, wife of 1^st petitioner, namely G.Sudharani, filed a private complaint under Sections 190 and 200 Cr.P.C before the Court of the learned IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad on 29.06.2012 with allegations that on 28.11.2011 at about 10.00 a.m., 3^rd respondent’s family tresspassed into her house in the absence of her husband/1^st petitioner and obtained her signatures in three blank NJ Stamp papers of Rs.100/- by way of threat and also collected three blank cheques with filled figure of Rs.25,00,000/- in one cheque and a covering letter and obtained original land documents. As the police failed to take action on her complaint, she preferred a private complaint. On receipt of the said complaint, on the same day, learned Magistrate referred the complaint to concerned police station to register FIR and for investigation. After completion of investigation, police filed charge sheet. The same was numbered as C.C.89 of 2013 on the file of the learned IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, for the offence punishable under Sections 342, 347, 420, 448, 192, 193, 506 read with 34 IPC.

iii. Later, 1^st petitioner and his wife filed a transfer petition bearing Tr.Crl.P.No.280 of 2013 before the Composite High Court at Hyderabad seeking transfer of the case bearing S.T.C.No.83 of 2013 on the file of the learned III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tirupathi, to be tried along with C.C.No.89 of 2013 on the file of the learned IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad at Nampally. The composite High Court, Hyderabad, on hearing the transfer petition and also considering the age and health condition of accused in C.C.No.89 of 2013 and as the trial of S.T.C.No.83 of 2013 has already been commenced, with a view to avoid conflicting judgment, transferred C.C.No.89 of 2013 on the file of the learned IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad to the Court of the learned V Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tirupathi to be tried along with S.T.C.No.83 of 2013.

iv. Later, mother of the 3^rd respondent namely P.V.Rajya Lakshmi also preferred a civil suit based on promissory note executed by 1^s