M/S. Hibeam Online Shoppee Pvt. ... vs The Competant Authority And ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 7031 Tel

              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/-.

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

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

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

CRIMINAL PETITION No.6665 of 2022

Date: 27.12.2022.

kvs