Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 49 (AP)

Appasani Madhuri v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2019-03-27

T.RAJANI

body2019
ORDER : T. Rajani, J. 1. These petitions are filed seeking for quash of the proceedings against the respective petitioners, who are the respective accused, in Crime Nos. 387, 383, 382 of 2012, 117 of 2018, 384 and 385 of 2012 on the file of the Station House Officer, II Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. The offences alleged are under Sections 468, 471, 420 and 120-B IPC 2. Heard the Counsel for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent and the Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent. 3. The complaint was registered against the petitioners stating that the 1st petitioner in Crl.P. Nos. 277, 278, 279, 280, 282 and 283 of 2019 approached the Bank for a mortgage loan on 29.12.2006. The first petitioner was introduced by the 2nd petitioner in the said petitions, who is an old customer of the Bank, for opening a savings account. The first petitioner also offered equitable mortgage of immovable property of late Dasari Paradesi inherited by legal heirs, who also figured as accused. Later, the 1st petitioner failed to discharge the mortgage amount. In the course of inspection, it came to light that the property mortgaged with the Bank was acquired by the Government and that the property is a Government land. The enquiries made with the MRO confirmed the said fact. 4. The petitioner in Crl.P. No. 281 of 2019 approached the de facto complainant bank with a proposal for grant of credit facilities such as term loans and overdrafts for the purpose of agricultural and allied activities including construction of cold storage. The said petitioner has become defaulter in repayment of the loan amount and on verification by the de facto complainant bank, it came to light that there was no property in the name of the accused and thereby, the accused is alleged to have cheated the bank and also committed an offence of criminal breach of trust. 5. These being the allegations, the Counsel for the petitioners now submits that the loans were paid off and there was a settlement between the parties. The Public Prosecutor does not refute the said submission. However, the terms of compromise or settlement are not filed into the Court. 6. 5. These being the allegations, the Counsel for the petitioners now submits that the loans were paid off and there was a settlement between the parties. The Public Prosecutor does not refute the said submission. However, the terms of compromise or settlement are not filed into the Court. 6. The fact remains that the crime was registered way back in the year 2012 and absolutely no investigation seems to have progressed since then, which can be understood from the fact that the Public Prosecutor could not submit as to what is the stage of investigation. Apart from the said fact, from the complaint it can be understood that the immovable properties pertain to the guarantors, who stood as guarantors to the loan obtained by the petitioners. There is absolutely no allegation that the petitioners were behind the creation of the documents which were mortgaged with the Bank. There is absolutely no material collected to show that the lands pertain to the Government. Hence, the settlement between the parties can be taken into consideration for quashing the proceedings. 7. The Counsel for the petitioners places reliance on the ruling of the Apex Court reported in Central Bureau of Investigation v. Sadhu Ram Singla and others, 2017 (1) ALD (Crl.) 981 (SC), wherein it was held that the law relating to the continuance of criminal cases where the complainant and the accused had settled their differences and had arrived at an amicable arrangement does not give any reason to differ with the view and several decisions of the Supreme Court delivered thereafter. It held that continuance of criminal proceedings after a compromise has been arrived at between the complainant and the accused, would to abuse of process of Court and an exercise in futility, since the trial would be prolonged and ultimately, it may end in a decision which may be of no consequence to any of the parties. In this case, though the settlement terms are not filed, the fact that the investigation is stalled, would suggest that no material, worth the prosecution, came forth against the petitioners. 8. In view of the above, this Court opines that continuation of further proceedings against the petitioners would be an abuse of process of law. 9. With the above observations, the criminal petitions are allowed and the proceedings in Crime Nos. 8. In view of the above, this Court opines that continuation of further proceedings against the petitioners would be an abuse of process of law. 9. With the above observations, the criminal petitions are allowed and the proceedings in Crime Nos. 387, 383, 386, 382 of 2012, 117 of 2018, 384 and 385 of 2012 on the file of the Station House Officer, II Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District, are hereby quashed. 10. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.