HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6665 OF 2022
ORDER:
1. This Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners in CC No.10 of 2022 on the file of Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.
2. The case of Police, Central Crime Station, Hyderabad is that the 2nd petitioner/A2 established the 1st petitioner/A1 company namely Hi-Beam Online Shoppee Private Limited registering with the Registrar of Companies. The 2nd petitioner appointed A3 as Admin and A6 as Manager Computers in order to cheat the depositors. It is alleged that the 2nd petitioner/A2 and A4 collected the amount under the guise of multi level marketing to gain wrongfully. Advertisements were also given in news papers etc., and influenced by such claim of getting refund within 10 days, several investors, who are examined during the course of trial as L.Ws.1 to 40 deposited amounts varying from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.9,50,000/-. It is the case of the police that the 1st petitioner company, which was being run by the 2nd petitioner and others cheated 42 depositors to a tune of Rs.46,61,000/-.
2
3. The main ground on which the learned counsel urged to quash the proceedings is that additional DGP was the competent authority to launch the prosecution for the proceedings under Section 5 of the A.P.Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999 and the Inspector of Police, who was examined as L.W.53 was not competent to file request before the Magistrate for adding Section 5 of the sad Act, for which reason, the entire proceedings are vitiated. He relied upon the judgment of this court in the case of Yousuf Bin Awad alias Yousauf v. State through Inspector of Police (2015 (3) ALT (CRI.) 471 (S.B) and argued that under similar circumstances adding of Section 5 of the Act was found to be by an incompetent officer. Further the appellant therein was denied an opportunity to defend himself as material which was relied upon by the prosecution was not provided for which reason, the Court held that the trial was vitiated.
4. In the present case, the documents are filed by the prosecution to substantiate that receipts were issued in the name of A1 company and also that the 2nd petitioner/A2 was responsible for promoting the company/A1. Several victims are also examined who 3 narrate that the amounts were given. Prima facie there is documentary and oral evidence to proceed with the trial against the petitioners for the offences alleged. If a charge under the Depositors Act cannot be framed, the same can be agitated before the concerned Court at the stage of discharge.
5. For the aforementioned reasons, there are no merits and accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if, pending, shall stands closed.
__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 27.12.2022 kvs 4 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL PETITION No.6665 of 2022 Date: 27.12.2022.
kvs