Telangana High Court
Panchagiri Satyanarayana vs The State Of Telangana on 1 July, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.12879 of 2023
ORDER:
This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.PC seeking to
quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in C.C.No.20
of 2022 on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge,
Hanumakonda, for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 406,
506 IPC and Section 5 of Telangana Protection of Depositors of
Financial Establishments Act, 1999.
2. The facts of the case are that the 2nd respondent gave
complaint on 01.02.2022 to the police stating that she joined in a
Chit series bearing No.ACT0-1S-30 in Achala Chit Fund Company,
and the value of the chit was Rs.50,00,000/- with a duration of 50
months, and the 2nd respondent lifted the chit in the month of July
2021 and furnished sureties. Despite that the Chit Fund company
failed to pay the amount, that 2nd respondent alleged to have paid
Rs.21,69,896/-. The balance payable in his favour of Rs.37,60,000/-
but the chit fund company failed to pay the amount to the 2nd
respondent. On the basis of said complaint, a case in Crime No.55 of
2022 was registered against the petitioner for the offences under
Sections 420, 406, 290, 506 IPC, and the police after investigation
filed charge sheet which came to be numbered as C.C.No.20 of 2022.
3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is
that the petitioner has not committed any offence, the 2nd
respondent joined in Chit Series bearing No.ACT0-1S-30 of Chit
value of Rs.50,00,000/-, and the 2nd respondent was held to be a
successful bidder in the month of July 2021, and the 2nd respondent
under the provisions of Chit Fund Act required to furnish sureties
and execute documents ensuring the payment of future instalments,
and the chit fund company found the sureties produced by 2nd
respondent as not sufficient and further he was requested to
produce sureties of Government employees but the 2nd respondent
failed to produce the sureties, the 2nd respondent instead of
furnishing solvent sureties, insisted for return of amount paid by
him in the company. The amount payable to the 2nd respondent will
be paid only after closure of chit series; and if the amount is not
paid, he has to file a recovery suit before the Chit Registrar,
Hanumakonda, as per the provisions of the Chit Fund Act. It is also
contended that the allegations in the first report as well as the
charge sheet does not satisfy the ingredients of the alleged offences
and as such prayed to quash the proceedings.
4. Heard Sri A. Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri S. Ganesh, learned Assistant
Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1. Though
notice was served on the 2nd respondent, none appeared.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
averments in the complaint itself does not constitute any offence and
further the defacto complainant can receive the amount only after
the closure of the chit series, and further the defacto complainant
has not furnished the sufficient sureties as required, and even if any
amount is due, the 2nd respondent has to file a recovery suit and not
the present case as such prayed the Court to quash the proceedings.
6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the
allegations are serious in nature and there are number of victims, as
such prayed to dismiss the petition.
7. Having regard to the rival submissions and material on
record, the complaint is filed against the petitioner stating that the
petitioner has not given the amount subscribed by him though he
paid the total amount in the name of Chit and he has to pay the
same two months after lifting the chit, but till today not paid, and
the statement of witnesses shows that petitioner evaded the payment
of amount. LW2 also stated that instead of giving chit amount,
petitioner is threatening and giving evasive replies. Whether she paid
total amount and what is the duration of chit and this petitioner is
at fault in furnishing sureties requires trial and therefore at this
stage, the averments shows that there are serious allegations against
the petitioner which require trial, as such the petition is liable to be
dismissed.
8. At this stage, it is pertinent to note the Judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Surendra
Kori 1, wherein, in paragraph No.14 it is held as follows:
"The High Court in exercise of its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. does
not function as a Court of appeal or revision. This Court has, in several
judgments, held that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,
though wide, has to be used sparingly, carefully and with caution. The
High Court, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., should normally refrain from giving
a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and
hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced
before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of
wide magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without
sufficient material."
9. In view of the above discussion as well as the law laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Surendra Kori (supra), this Court
does not find any merit in this criminal petition to quash the
proceedings against the petitioner/accused in C.C.No.20 of 2022 on
the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Hanumakonda, and
the same is liable to be dismissed.
10. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.
______________
K. SUJANA, J
01st July, 2024
ksm
1 (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155
