Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 381 (AP)

Seepana Guna Prasad v. State of A. P.

2006-03-16

P.S.NARAYANA

body2006
ORDER : P.S. NARAYANA, J.:— The petitioners/accused filed the present Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for the relief of quashing the proceedings in C.C. No. 119/2004 on the file of VII Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. The petitioners were charged with an offence under Section 420 IPC. The 1st respondent had laid the charge sheet. 2. Sri. P. Satyanarayana, the learned Counsel representing the petitioners would maintain that even if the allegations in the charge sheet are taken into consideration the ingredients of Section 420 IPC are not attracted. Even otherwise, these allegations are mala fide allegations and prima facie if the Court is satisfied that these allegations are mala fide, the proceedings definitely can be quashed. The learned Counsel placed strong reliance on Alpic Finance Ltd. v. P. Sadasivan, 2001 (1) ALD (Crl) 551 (S.C.) and State of M.P. v. Dr. Krishna Chandra Saksena, 1997 (1) ALD (Crl) 449 (S.C.). 3. The learned Counsel also placed the Official Memorandum dated 27-4-2005 wherein it is stated that the A.P. State Human Rights Committee had directed payment of some compensation. On the strength of the same, submissions at length were made in the light of the same that these proceedings can prima facie be taken as mala fide. 4. Per contra, Sri. M. Viswanadham, the learned Counsel representing the contesting respondents would maintain that the mere fact that the Human Rights Committee had awarded some compensation in the light of the allegations made as against the Police, the same cannot be a ground to quash the proceedings. 5. Sri. K.V. Simhadri, the learned Counsel representing the contesting respondents also made certain submissions taking this Court through the averments made in the charge sheet. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor would contend that in the light of the averments made in charge sheet, these aspects may have to be gone into at the appropriate stage and this is not a fit case to be interfered with at this stage under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 7. In the light of the contentions of the learned Counsel, it may be appropriate to have a look at the allegations made in the charge sheet which are as hereunder: A-1 is a resident of Matrusri Apartment, 104 area, Marripalem, Visakhapatnam doing security Media as Chief Global Unit Officer, while A-2 is the wife of A-1. 7. In the light of the contentions of the learned Counsel, it may be appropriate to have a look at the allegations made in the charge sheet which are as hereunder: A-1 is a resident of Matrusri Apartment, 104 area, Marripalem, Visakhapatnam doing security Media as Chief Global Unit Officer, while A-2 is the wife of A-1. The offence took place at Matrusri Apartment 104 area, Marripalem, which is in the limits of L & O V Town P.S., which lies within the limits of the Honourable Court. L.W.2, the husband of the L.W.1, gave the amount to the accused in presence of L.W.3. L.W.4 gave hand loan of Rs. 30,000/- to L.W.1. L.Ws.5 and 6 are the mediators regarding the seizure of the van by L.W.7 and L.W.7 is the Investigating Police Officer and Sub-Inspector of Police, L&O v. Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam city. L.W.1 is residing at Matrusri Apartment II-B, 104 area, Visakhapatnam along with her husband (L.W.2.). L.W.2 worked in Army and retired from service. Both A-1 and A-2 who are residing in the 1st floor of Matrusri Apartment for rent, had a friendship with L.W.1. Both A-1 and A-2 promised. L.W.1 that there are decent vacancies at Gulf countries for which they asked L.W.1 for an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- to arrange placement to L.W.2. and asked L.W.1. to pay an advance of Rs. 50,000/- for which L.W.1 gave an amount of Rs. 30,000/- on 1-10-2003 and an amount of Rs. 20,000/- on 13-10-2003 and an amount of Rs. 10,000/- on 4-11-2003 (in all both the accused took an amount of Rs. 60,000/- from L.W.1.). A-1 also executed two promissory notes in favour of L.W.1. Both the accused did not sent L.W.2 for Gulf countries also nor returned the amounts to L.W.1. On 22-1-2004 at 17-00 hours, L.W.1 presented a report to L.W.7 and on the strength of the report a case in Crime No. 23/2004 u/S.402 IPC was registered by L.W.7 and investigated into. L.W.7 also visited the scene of offence, examined the same, in addition to examining and recording the statements of L.Ws.1 to 4. According to the statements of L.Ws.1 to 4 it is clearly disclosed that both the accused took in all an amount of Rs. 60,000/- by promising that they will sent L.W.2 for Gulf countries and to provide Decent Job. According to the statements of L.Ws.1 to 4 it is clearly disclosed that both the accused took in all an amount of Rs. 60,000/- by promising that they will sent L.W.2 for Gulf countries and to provide Decent Job. On receipt of reliable information that the accused are trying to shift the house, in a white coloured van on 31-1-Ex.P.4, I along with mediators (L.Ws.5 and 6) rushed to Matrusree Apartment and noticed one tempo No. 31-T-7184 engraved with letters of GUNA abandoned on the road with house hold articles and L.W.7 seized them under cover of a mediators report in presence of L.Ws.5 and 6. An intimation was also submitted to L.W.7 and his staff also made enquiries about the accused but could not get any information and they are absconding. Both the accused filed a bail petition in the Honourable Court of IV Additional District Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam and the Honourable Court vide Crl.MP.123/2004 (Bails) dated 11th day of March 2004 directed the SHO L & O V Town P.S. to release both the accused on bail in the event of their arrest, on executing of personal bond for Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties each, but both the accused did not turnup at L&O V Town P.S., though the Court ordered that both the accused are directed to appear before SHO L & O V Town PS on every Sunday at 10-00 PM until further orders. According to the statements of witnesses, and investigation it is disclosed that both the accused took huge amount from L.W. 1 promising that they will send L.W.2 for Gulf countries for better placement, and later the accused neither provided a job nor returned the amount and thereby cheated L.Ws.1 and 2. Both the accused cheated L.W.1 and caused wrongful loss to L.W.1 and wrongful gain to themselves and hence they are liable for punishment under Section 420 IPC. 8. The allegations in the charge sheet are self-explanatory. Strong reliance was placed on the decisions referred (1) and (2) supra to substantiate the stand that even on the ground of mala fides the proceedings can be quashed. Reliance also was placed on the Official Memorandum issued by the A.P. State Human Rights Committee dated 27-4-2005. 8. The allegations in the charge sheet are self-explanatory. Strong reliance was placed on the decisions referred (1) and (2) supra to substantiate the stand that even on the ground of mala fides the proceedings can be quashed. Reliance also was placed on the Official Memorandum issued by the A.P. State Human Rights Committee dated 27-4-2005. In the light of the allegations which had been referred to supra and specified in the charge sheet, merely on the ground that the A.P. Human Rights Committee had directed some compensation to be paid, it cannot be taken as a ground to arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings are mala fide. It is needless to say that these matters may have to be gone into at the appropriate stage. Even otherwise, these are all factual issues and the same cannot be decided at the threshold in a proceeding of this nature under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence, this Court does not see any reason to interfere with the proceedings at this stage. However, liberty is given to the petitioners to agitate all the grounds urged before this Court at the appropriate stage. 9. Accordingly the Criminal Petition shall stand dismissed with the above observation.