Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 410 (AP)

Mannem Mohan Rao v. State of A. P.

2022-04-13

K.SREENIVASA REDDY

body2022
JUDGMENT K.Sreenivasa Reddy, J. - This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.973 of 2016 on the file of the III additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned additional Public Prosecutor appearing for 1st respondent-State. 3. Basing on a report lodged by 2nd respondent-informant, police registered a case in crime No.236 of 2016 of Governorpet police station, Vijayawada city, and after completion of investigation, laid charge sheet against the petitioner/a.3 and others for the offence punishable under Section 420 read with 34 IPC. The allegations in the charge sheet, in brief, may be stated as follows. a.1 approached L.Ws.2 to 5-M.Rama Devi, a.Durga, T.Mallikarjuna Rao and P.Sarada on various occasions, assured them that he would arrange personal loans, took them to State Bank of India, Gandhinagar branch on different dates and made them to open accounts. On 12.04.2016, a.1 took L.W.2-M.Rama Devi, who is none other than his elder sister, to Sonovision, a consumer goods retail shop situated at arundalpet, Vijayawada, made her to sign on application for Consumer Loan, collected a blank cheque duly signed, besides Id and address proofs and sent her away saying that she would get loan within two months. a.1 adopted same modus operandi in respect of other 4 persons. He submitted loan applications along with required documents like bank cheque and id and address proofs of said five persons in Sonovision Shop, made down payment and purchased aC machines, washing machines, TVs, etc., gave them to a.2 and took commission from her. Later, a.2 gave the product to petitioner-a.3 and took some commission. Later, petitioner-a.3 sold the product to customers and made money. as a.1 did not pay the monthly instalments to M/s. Capital First Finance, 2nd respondent-informant, who is Collection Manager of said firm, contacted the said five persons and asked them about non-payment of instalments, and the said persons stated that they did not purchase any products from Sonovision shop, and when they contacted a.1 through phone, he did not respond. as a.1 did not pay the monthly instalments to M/s. Capital First Finance, 2nd respondent-informant, who is Collection Manager of said firm, contacted the said five persons and asked them about non-payment of instalments, and the said persons stated that they did not purchase any products from Sonovision shop, and when they contacted a.1 through phone, he did not respond. Therefore, a.1 deceived the said persons in the guise of arranging personal loans, obtained their signatures on loan application forms, collected their Id and address proof and blank cheques duly signed, purchased different consumer products by making down payment in Sonovision Shop and sold the products to customers through a.2 and a.3, and all the accused got wrongful gain. The Capital First Finance paid the cost of the products to Sonovision Shop from where the consumer products were purchased. Hence, a.1 to a.3 caused wrongful loss to said firm and deceived the said five persons. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is absolutely no accusation made against the petitioner/a.3; that all the allegations are directed against a.1, and even a perusal of the charge sheet shows that it is a.1 who deceived the victims and there is absolutely nothing averred as against the petitioner/a.3. 5. On the other hand, Sri Soora Venkata Sainath, learned Special assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the quash petition and contended that there are specific accusations made as against the petitioner/a.3; that it is a.1 to a.3, who caused wrongful loss to the finance company and deceived the victims, and truth or otherwise of the allegations of the said accusations has to be decided in the course of trial. 6. There cannot be any dispute that inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised to prevent abuse of process of Court or to give effect to any order under the code or to secure the ends of justice. This Court perused the record. On a reading of the allegations in the charge sheet goes to show that a.1 submitted loan applications along with required documents like bank cheque, id and address proofs of L.Ws.2 to 5-M.Rama Devi, a.Durga, T.Mallikarjuna Rao and P.Sarada in Sonovision shop, made down payment and purchased aC machines, washing machines, TVs, etc., gave them to a.2 and took commission from her. It is further alleged that a.2 gave the product to petitioner/a.3 and took some commission and later the petitioner/a.3 sold the product to customers and made money. It is further alleged that as a.1 did not pay monthly instalments to M/s. Capital First Finance, 2nd respondent-informant, who is Collection Manager of the said firm asked L.Ws.2 to 5-M.Rama Devi, a.Durga, T.Mallikarjuna Rao and P.Sarada about non-payment of instalments, for which they were surprised to know that the products were purchased in their names. They contacted a.1 through phone, but he did not respond. On investigation, police came to conclusion that it is a.1, who deceived L.Ws.2 to 5-M.Rama Devi, a.Durga, T.Mallikarjuna Rao and P.Sarada, under the guise of arranging loans, obtained their signatures on loan application form, collected their id and address proofs and blank cheques duly signed, purchased different consumer products by making down payment in Sonovision shop and sold the products to customers through a.2 and a.3, and that all the accused got wrongful gain thereby L.Ws.2 to 5-M.Rama Devi, a.Durga, T.Mallikarjuna Rao and P.Sarada were deceived. 7. On a plain reading of the allegations would disclose that prima facie it is a.1 to a.3, who, with a common intention and with connivance, deceived the complainant and others and made wrongful gain by disposing of the products to other customers. The allegations in the charge sheet make out a prima facie case as against the petitioner/a.3. Truth or otherwise of the said allegations has to be decided during the course of trial. This Court, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., would not be in a position to appreciate the facts by adopting a roving enquiry. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner/a.3 relied on a judgment of the Hon'ble apex court in State of Haryana Vs. Ch.Bhajanlal and ors. aIR 1992 SC 604 . The said case is not applicable to the present facts, for the reason that specific accusations are made out as against the petitioners herein and during the course of trial, all the links will be established. 9. accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in the Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.