The present Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/A1 to A4, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them in C.C.No.1048 of 2014 on the file of the X-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, for the offences under Sections 120-B, 384, 467, 468, 471 and 500 of I.P.C.
The facts in issue are as under:
The 1st respondent/complainant filed a private complaint against the petitioners/A1 to A4 before the X-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 384, 467, 468, 471 and 500 of I.P.C., alleging therein that the 1st respondent/complainant is the Vice-President in Maha Hotel Projects (P) Limited and presently looking after one of its group companies Golden Jubilee Hotels Limited. The 1st petitioner/A1 was originally the founder Director of I.T.E. India (P) Limited (3rd petitioner/A3), a company based in New Delhi and consequently Hyderabad Trade Expo Centre (P) Limited (4th petitioner/A4) and has resigned from his Directorship in the year 2007 but continued to function as an authorized person of the company. The 2nd petitioner/A2 was inducted as a Director in the company of 3rd petitioner/A3 prior to 2007 and in the company of 4th petitioner/A4 on 07.03.2007. 3rd and 4th petitioners are being represented by the 2nd petitioner/A2.
It is stated in the complaint that prior to 1992, the 1st respondent/complainant was working in Reed Information Services (P) Limited, a U.K. based company having its office at New Delhi. The 1st petitioner/A1, who knew the 1st respondent/complainant for quite some time before that, requested him to join I.T.E. India (P) Limited, assuring him that his association with the said Company would culminate into a very fantastic career. Upon the assurance of the 1st petitioner/A1, the complainant joined in 3rd petitioner/A3 company as a Project Manager on 10.08.1998, with a salary of Rs.11,500/-. It is further stated that the 1st respondent/complainant started working with the 3rd petitioner/A3 company in New Delhi as a Project Manager, and with sheer hard work and efficiency, he was instrumental in development of the 3rd petitioner/A3 company and its other concerned organization. The 1st petitioner/A1 wanted to expand his business in Hyderabad by taking advantage of the benefits being offered by the Government of Andhra Pradesh and, therefore, a company under the name and style of Hyderabad Trade Expo Centre (P) Limited, was incorporated on 23.12.2002 and consequently upon putting up a proposal with the Government of Andhra Pradesh, a piece of land admeasuring Ac.1.10 Guntas was allotted to the 4th petitioner/A4. Even the incorporation and consequent work till the allotment of the land was on account of the efficient handling of the 1st respondent/complainant, however, for some reasons, the 1st petitioner/A1 stopped giving the 1st respondent/complainant a free hand to deal in the further activity of the 4th petitioner/A4 and as such the 4th petitioner/A4 did not take off till 2004. After realizing that nothing could go ahead without the involvement of the 1st respondent/complainant, who was well conversant with the language and local logistics, he was yet again put at the helm of the affairs of the 4th petitioner/A4, but the 1st respondent/complainant was still kept in the employment of 3rd petitioner/A3 company.
It is further submitted that the 1st petitioner/A1 proposed to the 1st respondent/complainant to shift to Hyderabad and in return promised that he would purchase a flat for him as a reward for the services rendered to the 3rd petitioner/A3 and 4th petitioner/A4 and also see that his salary will be increased according to company’s terms. Upon such categorical assurances, the 1st respondent/ complainant resigned from the 3rd petitioner/A3 company in March, 2005 and joined in the 4th petitioner/A4 company on 01.04.2005 and shifted his residence along with his wife and children from New Delhi to Hyderabad. Pursuant to the understanding, a flat in Sharda Residency in Plot No.14/3, flat No.401, Padmavathi Nagar, Erramanzil Colony, Hyderabad, was purchased and got registered on 31.08.2005. At the time of purchase, it was the 1st respondent/complainant, who negotiated the price of the apartment. It is also stated that at the time of taking possession of the flat, the flat was in semi-finished condition and as such the 1st respondent/complainant completed the unfinished works with his own funds and thereafter shifted his family to the said apartment Since the flat is supposed to be given to the 1st respondent/complainant, he was allowed to pay property tax, electrical charges and phone bills. In the month of April, 2005, the 1st respondent/complainant was appointed in the 4th petitioner/A4 company as Project Manager and in such capacity he worked day and night to see that the construction of the 4th petitioner/A4 company’s project “Expotel Hotel” could be completed in the given time frame and thereafter, the 1st respondent/complainant was made as Director of the 4th petitioner/ A4 company on 10.10.2008. Though the Expotel Hotel started functioning from 10.06.2010, the petitioners/A1 and A2 for the reasons best known to them, were not honouring the commitments and contracts that the 1st respondent/complainant made on behalf of the 4th petitioner/A4 company. It is further stated that whenever the 1st respondent/complainant was asking the 1st petitioner/A1 to complete the loan transaction and register the flat in his name, the petitioners/A1 and A2 were dodging the matter on one pretext or the other and as such the 1st respondent/ complainant expressed his opinion of leaving the company of the petitioners/A3 and A4. After obtaining green signal, the 1st respondent/complainant sent his resignation letter to the Board of Directors, through registered post and left the services of the 4th petitioner/A-4 on 09.01.2013 by handing over the files, books of accounts, relevant documents and petty cash to the HR Manager, Madan Mohan, and that on 15.01.2013 he joined in the employment of Maha Hotel Projects Private Limited as Vice President, which is headed by one L.N.Sharma, Director and CEO. The petitioners/A1 and A2 having the fear that the flat is to be claimed by the 1st respondent/ complainant, they hatched up a conspiracy to intimidate, torture and harass him, so that he will give up the idea of claiming the flat.
It is also submitted that as a consequence to the conspiracy, the petitioners/A1 and A2 got issued a legal notice dated 18.03.2013 through M/s. Vijay Law Officers, New Delhi, in which the petitioners/accused have made false and notorious allegations claiming that the 1st respondent/complainant was entrusted with the responsibility of running Expotel Hotel and was the sole signatory of the Bank Account of the 4th petitioner/A4 company and was responsible for payment of property taxes and other statutory liability and that the 3rd petitioner/A3 company allowed him to use the aforesaid flat, with a clear undertaking to leave the same within 24 hours of notice. It is also mentioned in the notice that the resignation letter, dated 29.12.2012, which was received by the 3rd petitioner/A3 company on 02.01.2013, was submitted without proper notice and the 1st respondent/complainant left the 3rd petitioner/A3 company without handing over stationary, financial documents including accounts, payment of taxes, statutory dues and other documents, which were continued to be kept in his custody and without handing over proper charge. It is also stated that being the sole signatory, the 1st respondent/complainant had withdrawn lakhs of rupees from company’s account of Hyderabad Trade Expo Center Private Limited. It is also stated that the 1st petitioner/A1 filed a complaint before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari, New Delhi in C.C.No.167/13. The said C.C. was dismissed at the precognizance stage on 11.02.2014 and aggrieved by the same, the 1st petitioner/A1 filed an appeal before the District and Sessions Judge, Central (Tis Hazari) New Delhi, which is pending. It is further submitted that the 1st petitioner/A1 has sent a letter to the State Bank of Hyderabad, stating that they have lost the counterfoil of an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- debited on 04.08.2012 and transferred by RTGS UTR No.SBH YH 122173003 and asked to issue a copy of the cheque as the transaction was not reflected in the books of account of the 4th petitioner/A4 company. It is further stated that on 02.05.2014, the 1st petitioner/A1 sent a letter through his g-mail Sharmamukesh11@gmail.com to Shri L.N.Sharma, Director and CEO, Golden Jubilee Hotels, who is the present employer of the 1st respondent/complainant, by making the following allegations against the 1st respondent/complainant.
1. That he has left the accused No.3 and 4 companies abruptly without handing over charge, statutory documents and amounts lying with the complaint for one year and four months.
2. Occupying the company’s flat and not vacating the same though one year and four months had passed.
3. After going through the documents the directors have found that the complainant misused the stationery of Expotel Hotel including submitting false salary certificates, personally by the Complainant to the present employer, and though the complainant claimed that he was drawing a salary of Rs.75,000/- p.m. The complainant was actually drawing a salary of Rs.20,000/- per month and the same can be verified from the Income Tax Returns.
4. The complainant misappropriated funds of the company and also signed a cheque in his own favour of Rs.2.00 lakhs without any approval which the accused found out later and the amount embezzled by the complainant was not returned back to the Company and that after waiting patiently the Company has initiated appropriate steps/ action against the Complainant in various Courts of law including EOW, Delhi Police, Sessions Court and also other action Civil and Criminal including recovery proceedings for various amounts including damage. The accused No.1 has also mentioned in his letter that he thought it fit to bring the above facts to the personal notice of Mr.L.N.Sharma so that his company is also not duped of lakhs of rupees like their Company and as the complainant is holding responsible position and would play with the trust of other people of the fraternity warned Mr.L.N.Sharma to be careful of the complainant and not go on the soft looks of the complainant.
It is further stated that the petitioners/A1 and A2 not only sent the e-mail to Mr.Sharma, Director & CEO of Golden Jubilee Hotels Limited, but also circulated the complaints and the above letter, among different persons of the Hotel Industry in particular and also the Government Departments and the Industry Circle in general spreading a rumor that the 1st respondent/complainant is a fraud, cheater and a criminal and, in fact, the petitioners/A1 and A2 had virtually hatched a conspiracy to see that not only the image and character of the 1st respondent/complainant is tarnished but also to see that his entire career is jeopardized. It is further stated that the petitioners/A1 and A2 filed C.C.No.167/13, showing the address of the 1st respondent/ complainant as 105, Raj Nivas, Pratap Nagar, Mayur Vihar, New Delhi, knowing fully well that he vacated the said flat in Delhi in March, 2005 and started staying at Hyderabad. It is further stated that the petitioners/A1 and A2 have circulated the aforesaid letter, false and fabricated documents and the tainted legal notice, to all the employees of petitioners/A3 and A4 companies and different business houses and the Government Departments, with which he was communicating. Thus, the petitioners/A1 to A4 have committed the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 384, 467, 468, 471 and 500 of I.P.C. After recording the sworn statement of the 1st respondent/ complainant, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against the petitioners/A1 to A4, for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 384, 467, 468, 471 and 500 of I.P.C. and the same was numbered as C.C.No.1048 of 2014. The present Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners/A1 to A4 in the said C.C.No.1048 of 2014.
Heard Sri N.Bharat Babu, learned Counsel for the petitioners/A1 to A4, Sri Sharad Sanghi, learned Counsel representing Sri Vikram Pooserla, learned Counsel for the 1st respondent/complainant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 2nd respondent/State.
Learned Counsel for the petitioners/A1 to A4 would submit that the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners in C.C.No.1048 of 2014, are purely abusive of process of Court and the same are liable to be quashed. Even if the entire allegations in the complaint are taken in its entirety, they do not constitute any offence much less the offences alleged against the petitioners/A1 to A4. It is further submitted that the 1st respondent/ complainant, who was the ex-employee of the petitioners/A1 to A4, and who was permitted to stay in the flat in question, hatched a plan to knock away the said flat situated at Hyderabad and thereby lodged a false and frivolous complaint. The intention of the 1st respondent/complainant is to implicate the petitioners/A1 to A4 in a criminal case and to make them to face the ordeal of criminal trial to settle his evil desires. The allegations in the complaint would not satisfy the ingredients of the offences of criminal conspiracy, extortion, forgery, cheating and defamation, but the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance mechanically without application of mind. The petitioners/A1 to A4 have rightly sent an email to the present employer of the 1st respondent/complainant, stating all the misdeeds committed by him and also pendency of criminal proceedings against him. Even assuming that the allegations made in the complaint are true, they are of civil nature and for such civil dispute, the 1st respondent/complainant shall approach the proper civil Court for his alleged redressal. The 1st respondent/complainant approached the criminal Court with unclean hands and for extraneous reasons and in order to wreck vengeance against the petitioners/A1 to A4 for filing criminal case against him at New Delhi, and to knock away the flat, that was given as company accommodation, while he was in service of the Company. None of the allegations alleged would constitute an offence and the learned Magistrate should not have taken cognizance at all, as the intention of the 1st respondent/complainant is only to knock away the flat under the garb of criminal proceedings. In any event, the complaint is unsustainable and its continuation would amount to abuse of process of Court. In support of his contention, he relied on the following judgments of the Apex Court.
1. Pepsi Foods Limited and another v. Special Judicial Magistrate and others (1998) 5 SCC 749)
2. GHCL Employees Stock Option Trust v. India Infoline Ltd. (2013) 4 SCC 505)
3. Inder Mohan Goswami and another v. State of Uttaranchal and others (2008) AIR SC 251)
Learned Counsel for the 1st respondent/Complainant would submit that the complaint filed by the 1st respondent clearly discloses the ingredients of the aforesaid offences against the petitioners/A1 to A4. He further submits that the petitioners/A1 and A2 sent an email dated 02.05.2014 to the present employer of the 1st respondent/complainant with intent to defame him and to damage his reputation in the society and also to cause mental agony to the complainant. He further submits that the petitioners/accused have committed forgery by creating a false document dated 19.01.2013 to defame the 1st respondent/complainant. He further submits that the complaint and the documents, which were filed along with the complaint, clearly show that the intention of the petitioners/accused is to deceive, defame and defraud the complainant. He further submits that all the pleas raised by the petitioners would fall within the purview of disputed questions of fact and they cannot be decided in this petition and, therefore, the Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed. In support the said contentions, he relied on the following judgments:
1. Arun Bhandari v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2013) 2 SCC 801)
2. N.Soundaram v. P.K.Pounraj and another (2014) 10 SCC 616)
3. L.Narayana Swamy v. State of Karnataka and others (2016) 9 SCC 598)
The scope and exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has time and again come before the Apex Court. It is settled position of law that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution. It is also settled position of law that if any abuse of the process leading to injustice is brought to the notice of the Court, then the court would be justified in preventing injustice by invoking inherent powers in absence of specific provisions in the Statute. In this regard, the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992) SCC (Crl.) 426)has laid down the following guidelines:
"In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers Under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelized and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
1. Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima-facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
2. Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers Under Section 156 (1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155 (2) of the Code.
3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
4. Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated Under Section 155 (2) of the Code.
5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."
In G.Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. (2000) 2 SCC 17)the Apex Court held as under:
“8. Jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code has to be exercised with great care. In exercise of its jurisdiction the High Court is not to examine the matter, superficially. It is to be seen if a matter, which is essentially of a civil nature, has been given a cloak of criminal offence. Criminal proceedings are not a short cut of other remedies available in law. Before issuing process, a criminal court has to exercise a great deal of caution. For the accused it is a serious matter. This Court has laid certain principles on the basis of which the High Court is to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. Jurisdiction under this Section has to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.”
It is well settled that while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has to be cautious. This power is to be used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is available, the High Court should not hesitate to quash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of Court. Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged.
In M/s Pepsi Foods Limited and another v. Special Judicial Magistrate and others (1 supra), the Apex Court in para 28, cautioned the Courts below against casual manner of taking cognizance of cases. It is observed that summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. The complainant is bound to adduce sufficient materials to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and to ascertain would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. The Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused.
In the present case, the 1st respondent/complainant has worked as a Project Manager in the 3rd petitioner/A-3 company from 10.08.1998 till March, 2005 and thereafter he was transferred to the 4th petitioner/A-4 company, which is the subsidiary company of the 3rd petitioner/A-3 company, and his salary was fixed at Rs.20,000/- per month. It is an admitted fact that the 1st respondent/complainant was provided with a bachelor accommodation to stay in flat No.401, Sarada Residency, Padmavathinagar, Erramanzil Colony, Hyderabad and the 1st respondent/complainant has sought permission of the petitioners to stay in the said flat vide his letter dated 16.09.2005. The record further shows that the 1st respondent/complainant had resigned from the job vide his resignation letter, dated 29.12.2012. As the 1st respondent/complainant had resigned the job without issuing two months notice in advance and also without handing over the charge to a responsible officer, the petitioners/A-1 to A-4 called upon the 1st respondent/complainant to vacate the said flat. As the 1st respondent/complainant failed to vacate the flat, the 3rd petitioner/A-3 got issued a legal notice, dated 18.03.2013 and that the 1st respondent/complainant got issued a reply notice, dated 11.04.2013 to settle the said flat in his favour.
So far as the other offences are concerned, there is absolutely no material in the complaint showing commission of any offence much less the offences under Sections 120-B, 384, 467, 468 and 471 of I.P.C.
Insofar as the offence under Section 500 of I.P.C., the contention of the 1st respondent/complainant is that the on 02.05.2004, the 1st petitioner/A-1 has sent a letter through his g-mail to Shri L.N.Sharma, Director & C.E.O., Golden Jubilee Hotels, who is the present employer of the 1st respondent/complainant, by making false imputations in order to tarnish the image and character of the 1st respondent/complainant. Before proceeding further, it would be useful to refer to the word “defamation”. Section 499 of I.P.C. defines 'defamation' and it is thus:
"499. Defamation.-Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter expected, to defame that person.
Explanation 1.-It may amount to defamation to impute anything to a deceased person, if the imputation would harm the reputation of that person if living, and is intended to be hurtful to the feelings of his family or other near relatives.
Explanation 2.-It may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company or an association or collection of persons as such.
Explanation 3.-An imputation in the form of an alternative or expressed ironically, may amount to defamation.
Explanation 4.-No imputation is said to harm a person's reputation, unless that imputation directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of that person, or lowers the character of that person in respect of his caste or of his calling, or lowers the credit of that person, or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a loathsome state, or in a state generally considered as disgraceful."
The essential ingredients of defamation are: 1) Making or publishing any imputation concerning any person; 2) Such imputation must have been made by (a) words, either spoken or intended to be read; or (b) signs; or (c) visible representations; 3) Such imputation must have been made with the intention of harming or with knowledge or reason to believe that it will harm the reputation of the person concerning whom it is made. In order to establish good faith it has to be first seen the circumstances under which the defamatory matter was written or uttered; Secondly, whether there was any malice; Thirdly, whether the accused made any inquiry before he made the allegations; Fourthly, whether there are reasons to accept the version that he acted with car
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
e and caution and finally whether there is preponderance of probability to show that the accused acted in good faith. In the instant case, the contention of the 1st respondent/ complainant is that the 1st petitioner/A-1 has sent a letter to his present employer by making some imputations. A perusal of the material on record would show that on 18.03.2013 itself the 3rd petitioner/A-3 got issued a legal notice to the 1st respondent/complainant stating that he has left the services without handing over the charge and without issuing the notice in advance. It is also stated in the legal notice that the 1st respondent/complainant has misappropriated Rs.2.00 lakhs and called upon him to vacate the flat, in which he was allowed to stay. Therefore, it is clear that the contents made in the legal notice and the contents made in the g-mail dated 02.05.2014, sent to the present employer of the 1st respondent/complainant, are similar in nature, but the 1st respondent/complainant failed to take any action against the petitioners at that time. Apart from that, the petitioners/A-3 and A-4 have also filed a complaint vide C.C.No.167/13 before the Metropolitan Magistrate (Spl.Acts) Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, to direct the 1st respondent/complainant herein to hand over the possession of the said flat and by an order, dated 11.02.2014, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, dismissed the said complaint stating that the said Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the case since the property is situated at Hyderabad. The record further shows that on 16.12.2014, the petitioners/A-3 and A-4 filed O.S.No.1079 of 2014 before the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against the 1st respondent/ complainant for recovery of possession of the said flat, which is now pending. After dismissal of the said complaint on the point of jurisdiction, the 1st respondent/complainant got filed the present private complaint against the petitioners/accused only in order to grab the flat, which was allotted to him as bachelor accommodation. If the contents made in the legal notice would tarnish his reputation, the 1st respondent/complainant would have filed the present complaint at that stage itself. Therefore, it appears that an attempt has been made by the 1st respondent/complainant to cloak a civil dispute with a colour of criminal nature and to wreck vengeance against the petitioners/A-1 to A-4, which is not permissible under law. For the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered view that it is a fit case to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/A-1 to A-4 in C.C.No.1048 of 2014 on the file of the X-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings initiated against the petitioners/A-1 to A-4 in C.C.No.1048 of 2014 on the file of the X-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, are hereby quashed. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.