The requirement of notice before condonation of delay in filing a report is essential to ensure fair procedure as mandated by the principles of natural justice.

ORDER :

J. SREENIVAS RAO, J.

This Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) by the petitioners, who are arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 4, 6 and 7, seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.715 of 2015 on the file of the XVI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

2. Heard Sri D.Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, representing Ms. Vladimeer Khatoon, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri S.Someshwar Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.2/de facto complainant and Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-State.

3. Brief facts of the case:

3.1. Respondent No.2 has filed a complaint on 22.02.2009 at about 14-10 hours, stating that he is the owner and sole developer of a residential property admeasuring 811 square yards, bearing Municipal Nos. 11-3-848 to 11-3-848/5, situated at Mallepally, Hyderabad. The property consists of 25 flats, which had been sold over the past four years, and the purchasers were in peaceful possession. He further stated that he had engaged security staff from Shah Security Services and other maintenance personnel for the building’s upkeep. Despite receiving the entire sale consideration, the land owner had filed a civil suit O.S. No. 665 of 2008 before the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, seeking an injunction that was not granted as the purchasers were already in possession. However, on the night of 22.02.2009 at about 12:30 a.m., petitioners, along with their associates assaulted the security guard Mr. Shekhar, confined him in a room, damaged the building, and attempted to trespass into the property. Based on this complaint, Crime No. 39 of 2009 under Sections 448 , 427, 342, 323 read with Section 34 of the IPC has been registered. Based on the said complaint, the Investigating Officer after conducting detailed investigation filed charge sheet and the same was taken cognizance and numbered as C.C. No.715 of 2015.

4. Submissions of learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners:

4.1 Learned Senior Counsel submitted that respondent No.2 lodged a complaint against the petitioners on 22.02.2009 and basing on the same, Crime No.39 of 2009 was registered by the Police, Habeebnagar Police Station, Hyderabad. On 25.10.2012, the Investigating Officer filed final report. The Investigating officer filed application on 19.11.2013 before the learned XVI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad seeking condonation of delay in filing final report and the learned Magistrate passed Order in S.R.No.61 of 2013 in Crl.M.P. No.4751 of 2015 on 03.12.2013 condoning the delay in filing final report and directed the office to number the case. The learned Magistrate without giving notice and opportunity to the petitioners passed the order, dated 03.12.2013, and condoned the delay and the same is gross violation of the principles of natural justice and taking cognizance against the petitioners is also clear abuse of the process of law.

4.2 He further submitted that the trial Court issued notice to respondent No.2 on 19.09.2013 calling for objections if any with regard to filing of final report by the Investigating Officer. Pursuant to the same, respondent No.2 filed protest petition on 26.12.2013 deleting accused No.3 and when the said application was pending, learned Magistrate issued another notice to respondent No.2 on 20.03.2015 directing him to appear before the trial Court with counsel on 10.04.2015 for filing objections about final report especially deleting the name of accused No.3. Accordingly, respondent No.2 filed memo on 08.05.2015 s