Mannem Mohan Rao vs The State Of A.P.
2022 Latest Caselaw 1789 AP

   THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY

          CRIMINAL PETITION No.11364 OF 2018

ORDER :

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 1 st

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. 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.1. 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.

_________________________________ JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY .04.2022 DRK

AIR 1992 SC 604

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY

CRIMINAL PETITION No.11364 OF 2018

.04.2022 DRK