Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

P. Pramod Deepak Chaitanya vs L.Muniswamy1 on 14 June, 2023

                                 1




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI

                           ****
            CRIMINAL PETITION No. 15330 of 2013
Between:

P. Pramod Deepak Chaitanya,
S/o.P.Sundara Ratnam, Aged about 33 years,
Occupation: Area Receivable Manager,
O/o.Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited,
Second Floor, Sunshine Plaza, Ramalingapuram,
Nellore, SPSR Nellore District.
                                   ... Petitioner/Accused No.3
             And

1.     The State of A.P., Represented by Public Prosecutor,
       High Court of A.P., Amaravati.
2.     Yellapeddi Shoba, W/o.Narayana Rao,
       Age not known, Occupation: Assistant General Manager,
       S.B.I., O/o.Barracks Centre, Achari Street,
       Nellore City, SPSR Nellore District.
                                                   ... Respondents

DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED:                14-06-2023

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA
1.     Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers
       may be allowed to see the judgment?               Yes/No
2.     Whether the copies of judgment may be
       marked to Law Reporters / Journals?               Yes/No
3.     Whether His Lordship wish to
       see the fair copy of the Judgment?                Yes/No



                                  DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA, J
                                   2




     * THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA


           + CRIMINAL PETITION No. 15330 of 2013

%     14-06-2023

Between:

P. Pramod Deepak Chaitanya,
S/o.P.Sundara Ratnam, Aged about 33 years,
Occupation: Area Receivable Manager,
O/o.Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited,
Second Floor, Sunshine Plaza, Ramalingapuram,
Nellore, SPSR Nellore District.
                                     ... Petitioner/Accused No.3
             And

1.     The State of A.P., Represented by Public Prosecutor,
       High Court of A.P., Amaravati.
3.     Yellapeddi Shoba, W/o.Narayana Rao,
       Age not known, Occupation: Assistant General Manager,
       S.B.I., O/o.Barracks Centre, Achari Street,
       Nellore City, SPSR Nellore District.
                                                ... Respondents

! Counsel for Petitioner              : Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri

^ Counsel for Respondents             : Asst.Public Prosecutor

< Gist:

> Head Note:

? Cases referred:

1.     1977 (2) SCC 699

2.     AIR 1992 SC 604

3.     2013 (1) ALD (Crl.) 652 (AP)

4.     2008 AIR SCW 6910

This Court made the following:
                                3




     HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA

            CRIMINAL PETITION No. 15330 of 2013


ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C") by the

petitioner/A.3 seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime

No.249 of 2013 of I Town Police Station, Nellore, registered for

the offence under Sections 403, 419 and 420 IPC.

2. The gist of the allegations set out in the said report

germane for disposal of the criminal petition may be stated as

follows:

(i) On 10.12.2013 the 2nd respondent/Assistant

General Manager, State Bank of India gave a complaint to the I

Town Police, Nellore alleging that a cheque was issued by A.2-

Akkireddy Konda Reddy, Proprietor of M/s.S.R.Enterprises/A.1

firm for Rs.4,70,634/- in favour of "Cholamandal Investment

and Finance Company Limited". The cheque was inadvertently

passed for payment by the 2nd respondent-Bank on 17.10.2012

while clearing through ICICI Bank, Nellore. After coming to know

about the erroneous payment made by the bank, the 2nd

respondent-bank addressed a letter to A.1 to A.3 requesting to

repay the amount which was credited in the loan account of A.2.

Taking undue advantage, they have not repaid the same. When

the Bank officials visited the house of A.2 many times, he was

not available, though he is liable to pay the amount to the bank.

Hence, the 2nd respondent gave a report for taking appropriate

action against A.1 to A.3. On the basis of the same, a case in

Crime No.249 of 2013 was registered in I Town Police Station,

Nellore against M/s.S.R.Enterprises-A.1 firm, Akkireddy Konda

Reddy/A.2, who is the Proprietor of A.1 firm and the Manager,

Cholamandal Investment and Finance Company Limited/A.3, for

the offences punishable under Sections 403, 419 and 420 IPC.

(ii) The 2nd accused, who is the Proprietor of A.1-firm

availed a loan from the petitioner/A.3 company for an amount of

Rs.6,40,000/- vide loan agreement No.XSHUNLR 00000555161,

dated 31.01.2011 and issued a cheque bearing No.323656 dated

08.10.2012 for an amount of Rs.4,70,634/- to discharge their

liability. The said cheque was presented by petitioner/A.3

through ICICI Bank, Nellore, for clearance and the amount was

credited into the loan account of A.1 and A.2. The alleged

transaction took place on 18.10.2012. The 2nd respondent-Bank,

without taking any steps, to realize their amount from A.1 and

A.2, resorted to file the present complaint after lapse of 14

months for the reasons best known to the 2nd respondent-Bank

and sent a letter dated 15.02.2013 requesting A.3-Company to

return the cheque amount of Rs.4,70,634/- for which A.3-

Company has issued a reply letter dated 18.02.2013 stating that

the loan account was closed and they are not in a position to

return the said amount. During the pendency of the

investigation, the present Criminal Petition is filed by the

Petitioner/Accused No.3 to quash the proceedings against him

in the above crime.

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner/A.3 would submit that

the Petitioner/A.3 is not at all responsible for the entire

transaction and even to repay the amount to the 2nd respondent-

bank. If at all the officials of the 2nd respondent-Bank

inadvertently cleared the cheque and credited the amount to the

loan account of A.2, it is their duty to proceed against A.1 and

A.2. He would further submit that continuation of criminal

proceedings against the petitioner/A.3 is an abuse of process of

the Court. Therefore, he prays to quash the FIR against

petitioner/A.3.

4. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that

though all the accused are having knowledge that A.1 and A.2

have insufficient funds in their account, directed petitioner/A.3

to present the cheque for collection and inadvertently, the 2nd

respondent-Bank cleared the cheque. Immediately after noticing

the same, 2nd respondent-Bank requested A.1 and A.2 and

petitioner/A.3 to repay the same, but on several reminders, they

did not respond to repay the same. Therefore, the allegations in

the complaint disclose the necessary ingredients for the

commission of the offence and a prima facie case is made out

against the petitioner/A.3 and the matter is criminal in nature.

He prays to dismiss the petition.

5. Now the point for consideration is:

Whether there are any merits in the criminal petition to

allow?

POINT:

6. In a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of

Karnataka Vs. L.Muniswamy1, it was observed as under:

"...the wholesome power under Section 482 Cr.P.C, entitles the High Court to quash a proceeding when it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The High Court have been invested with inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, to achieve a salutary public purpose. A Court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or prosecution................"

1977 (2) SCC 699

7. Besides the above decision, it should be noted that in

State of Haryana & Others Vs. Ch.Bhajanlal and Others2 the

Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the following guidelines as to

when the High Court can exercise its plenary powers under

Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings to prevent abuse of

process of the Court. They are,

(1) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused;

(2) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code;

(3) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or 'complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused;

(4) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code;

(5) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;

(6) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a

AIR 1992 SC 604

specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party;

(7) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.

8. As can be seen from the above guidelines, even if the

complaint allegations are accepted to be true on their face value,

if they do not constitute an offence against the accused, then the

FIR can be quashed against the accused.

9. In the instant case, A.1 and A.2 availed a loan from

Petitioner/A.3 and issued a cheque to discharge their loan

amount and when petitioner/A.3 presented the same through

ICICI Bank for collection, rightly or wrongly or due to

inadvertence, the 2nd respondent-Bank cleared the cheque and

the amount was credited to the petitioner's account and the said

account was closed. When the notice was issued by the 2nd

respondent-Bank to A.1 and A.2 and petitioner/A.3,

Petitioner/A.3 issued a reply on 18.03.2013 stating that, after

crediting the amount, the loan account of the drawer got closed

and they are not able to return the said amount, whereas, A.1

and A.2 have not responded. In these circumstances, the above

aspect would show the prima facie ingredients that there was a

transaction between A.1 to A.3 and the 2nd respondent-bank and

the amount was credited to the loan account of A.1 and A.2.

But, the Petitioner/A.3 is not found fault with and it is the fault

of A.1 and A.2. Having knowledge that they do not have

sufficient funds in their account, A.1 and A.2 issued the said

cheque and inadvertently, the 2nd respondent-Bank credited the

amount to the loan amount of A.1 and A.2. When the 2nd

respondent-bank issued a notice requesting A.1 and A.2 to repay

the amount, they have not responded. Therefore, A.1 and A.2 are

responsible for dishonestly issuing a cheque having knowledge

that there were no sufficient funds and they are responsible for

the commission of the offence, but not against the

petitioner/A.3.

10. In a similar set of facts and circumstances, in a decision

reported in Y. Sham Kumar V. State of AP3, this Court by

considering the facts of the case therein concluded that the

offence, if any, committed was only by the first accused but not

by any other accused and quashed the proceedings against A2

to A12 therein.

11. In a decision reported in Gorige Pentaiah vs. State Of

A.P. & Ors4, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held as follows:

2013 (1) ALD (CRL.) 652 (AP)

2008 AIR SCW 6910

"Inherent powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. though wide have to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in this section itself. Authority of the court exists for the advancement of justice. If any abuse of the process leading to injustice is brought to the notice of the court, then the Court would be justified in preventing injustice by invoking inherent powers in absence of specific provisions in the Statute."

12. A meticulous perusal of the contents of the complaint

reveals force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the

Petitioner/A.3. The matter requires to be investigated against

A.1 and A.2. There are absolutely valid legal grounds emanating

from the record warranting interference of this Court under

Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings against

Petitioner/A.3 in the above crime. Therefore, the continuation of

investigation for the aforesaid offence against petitioner/A.3

would amount to an abuse of process of the Court.

13. In view of the guideline No.3 in State of Haryana Vs.

Bhajanlal (supra), where the allegations made in the FIR or

complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do