Telangana High Court
Vodapally Ranganath vs The State Of Telangana on 4 November, 2022
Bench: K.Surender
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
Criminal Petition No.2251 OF 2019
Between:
Vodapally Ranganath. ... Petitioner
And
The State of Telangana through SHO,
P.S.Matwada, Warangal,
Rep. by Public Prosecutor and another ... Respondents
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 04.11.2022
Submitted for approval.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
1 Whether Reporters of Local
newspapers may be allowed to Yes/No
see the Judgments?
2 Whether the copies of judgment
may be marked to Law Yes/No
Reporters/Journals
3 Whether Their
Ladyship/Lordship wish to see Yes/No
the fair copy of the Judgment?
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
2
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER
+ CRL.P. No.2251 of 2019
% Dated 04.11.2022
# Vodapally Ranganath. ... Petitioner
And
$ The State of Telangana through SHO,
P.S.Matwada, Warangal,
Rep. by Public Prosecutor and another ... Respondents
! Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Rajeshwar Rao Garige
^ Counsel for the Respondents: Sri S.Sudershan, learned Addl.
Public Prosecutor for R1
Sri J.Srinivas for R2
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
3
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2251 of 2019
ORDER:
1. This petition is filed to quash the proceedings against the
petitioner/Accused in CC No.26 of 2017 on the file of VI
Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Warangal.
2. The police filed charge sheet against the petitioner on the
allegation that he had lent the amount to L.W.1 by mortgaging
the defacto complainant's 4 ½ acres of land at Rampur village.
Having received Rs.15.00 lakhs from him, the accused paid
Rs.8.00 lakhs, Rs.2.00 lakhs and again paid Rs.10.00 lakhs
totaling an amount of Rs.20.00 lakhs. The accused asked to
provide Rs.1.00 lakh for releasing gold, which was pledged.
L.W.1 sent four tulas of gold chain for the said demand. Again,
the defacto complainant paid Rs.3.00 lakhs and requested to
release his mortgaged items, for which the accused quarreled
that an amount of Rs.23.00 lakhs received was towards interest
and the defacto complainant should pay an amount of
Rs.55,29,000/- in all. Aggrieved by the same a complaint was
filed.
3. On the basis of the said complaint, police filed charge sheet
after investigation for the offence under Section 384 of IPC and
Sections 3(5)(b) of the Telangana Money Lenders Act, 1349 Fasli.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there
are pending civil disputes in between the parties and since the
money transactions are subject matter of civil court, there cannot
be any criminal prosecution. The Learned Magistrate has not
taken cognizance under section 384 IPC. The learned Magistrate
cannot take cognizance of the offence under Telangana Money
Lenders Act as the Magistrate has no jurisdiction. According to
Section 3(5)(b), it is for the Collector to award punishment under
the said clause and appeal against such order shall lie to the
Sessions Judge.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents
submits that police have conducted investigation and the defence
of the petitioners can be agitated before the concerned trial
Court. Clauses (b) and (c) of sub-section 5 of Section 3 of the Act
reads as follows:
"(b) If any person contravenes the provisions of clause(a), he shall
be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may
extend to six months or with fine or with both. The fine imposed
shall, in case of default, be recoverable as arrears of land revenue.
The Collector shall have power to award punishment under this
clause. An appeal against his order shall lie to the Sessions
Judge;
(c) An offence under this sub-section shall be cognizable and
bailable.
Section 2(c) of Cr.P.C reads as follows:
"(c) " cognizable offence" means an offence for which, and"
cognizable case" means a case in which, a police officer may, in
accordance with the First Schedule or under any other law for the
time being in force, arrest without warrant;"
6. As per Section 3(5)(c) of the Act, an offence under section
3(5)(b) is cognizable and bailable offence. For the said reason,
contravention of Section 3(5)(a), which is made punishable under
Section 3(5)(b) of the Act can be investigated by police. After any
police investigation, the police have to file a final report before the
jurisdictional Magistrate. Further, according to Section 3(5)(c) of
the Act the offence is bailable offence, it is the police who can
only effect arrest for criminal offence and in the event of such
arrest, it is for the concerned Police Officer to produce the
arrested accused before the concerned Magistrate within 24
hours in accordance with Code of Criminal Procedure.
In addition to the powers of investigation by the police and
trial by the competent Court, the legislature thought it fit to
empower the Collector to award punishment under Section
3(5)(b) of the Act. The said empowerment does not oust the
jurisdiction of the concerned Magistrate to try the offence or the
police to investigate the offence.
7. For the aforementioned reasons, the Criminal Petition lacks
merits and the same is dismissed. The trial Court is directed to
proceed with the trial in accordance with the procedure.
8. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any
pending, shall stand closed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 04.11.2022
Note: LR copy to be marked.
B/o.kvs
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2251 of 2019
Date: 04.11.2022.
kvs
