ORDER:

The petitioners herein are arrayed as A-1 and A-2 in the compliant in C.C.No.535 of 2009, on the file of the IV Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur, for the offences punishable under Sections 336, 409, 420, 506, 120(B) r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “I.P.C.”).

2. The facts that are germane for filing of this criminal petition are:

(a) The complainant/2nd respondent supplied Chillies on credit to A-4 through A-3, who is commission agent. The complainant demanded A-3 and A-4 for payment of the amounts. They have not paid the amounts. Later, on 07.09.2007 A-3 got issued a registered legal notice to the complainant demanding huge amount. Thereafter, the complainant questioned A-3, then A-3 replied that said legal notice is false notice.

(b) Subsequently, on 01.12.2007, A-1 and A-2 came to the shop of the complainant and demanded the complainant to pay the amount, where the complainant was due to A-3 and A-4.

And again on 28.12.2007, A-1 and A-2 along with some other persons came to the shop of the complainant, at that time complainant was not there in the shop. Then A-1 and A-2 destroyed the furniture in the shop. Then, the complainant through telephone warned A-1 and A-2.

(c) The complainant/2nd respondent herein has filed a private complaint before the IV Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur, the said complaint was referred to the police under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(for short “Cr.P.C.”) and the police registered a Crime No.118 dated 13.05.2008, for the offences punishable under Sections 336, 409, 420, 506, 120(B) r/w 34 of I.P.C and a final report was filed by the police stating that there are financial transactions between the complainant and A-3, A-4. Accordingly, the police has referred the case as false by proceedings dated 04.09.2008.

(d) Aggrieved by the action of the police in referring the case as false, the 2nd respondent herein filed a protest petition and the same was taken on file by the learned IV Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur and issued summons to the petitioners herein for the offences punishable under Sections

336, 409, 420, 506, 120(B) r/w 34 of I.P.C.

(e) In taking cognizance for the aforesaid offences, the present criminal petition came to be filed to quash the proceedings on the ground that the incident was happened on 01.12.2007 and subsequent incident was happened on 28.12.2007 and the complaint was filed on 19.02.2008, and subtle delay in initiating criminal proceedings and also contended that the ingredients of Section 420, 409, 336, 506 have no application to the facts of the case, hence, prayed to quash the proceedings.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners also relies on the judgments of common High Court passed in Crl.P.Nos.3053 and 3852 of 2010, wherein a learned single Judge of the Common High Court has quashed the proceedings initiated against A-4 and partly allowed against A-3. Therefore, he would pray to allow the criminal petition and to quash C.C.No.535 of 2009, on the file of the IV Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v.

M.Madhusudhan Rao 1 for the proposition, delay in lodging the F.I.R., is a ground to terminate the criminal proceedings.

5. Delay in lodging the F.I.R can be satisfactorily explained, during the course of trial. Therefore, it is not a ground to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. In the case relied by the petitioners in Madhusudhan Rao referred supra the criminal case was dismissed, as the prosecution has failed to explain the delay during the trial, hence the judgment is not applicable to the present facts of the case and the complaint was not quashed by exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section

482 of Cr.P.C.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners also relied on the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka in B.Durga Ram v. State and another in Crl.P.No.2072 of 2017 dated 02.06.2022. The