Telangana High Court
Panchagiri Satyanarayana vs The State Of Telangana on 1 July, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.12878 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.22 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 22.01.2022 to the police stating that she joined in a Chit
series bearing No.ACT 21J-8 in Achala Chit Fund Company in the
month of September 2020, and the value of the chit was
Rs.5,00,000/- with a duration of 50 months, and the 2nd respondent
lifted the chit in the month of September 2021 by which she alleged to
have paid Rs.2,63,318. The amount payable in future was adjusted
with the amount in chit subscribed by her and due payable to her was
Rs.1,90,197/- but he failed to pay the amount. On the basis of the
said complaint, a case in Crime No.37 of 2022 was registered against
the petitioner for theoffences under Sections 420, 406, 506 IPC, and
the police after investigation filed charge sheet which came to be
numbered as C.C.No.22 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.ACT 21J-8 of Chit value of
Rs.5,00,000/- with a duration of 50 months in the month of
September 2020 and discontinued in September 2021, that during the
currency of chit the 2nd respondent is not entitled for refund of the
amount which was subscribed by her in the said series; and if the
maount is not paid, she has to filed 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 defaulted the chit series and she paid
amount only for the year and therefore she is not entitled for the
refund of the said amount, and even if any amount is due she 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 her though she
paid the total amount in the name of Chit and he has to pay the same
two months after lifting the chit but has not paid till today, and the
statement of witnesses shows that petitioner evaded the payment after
leaving the chit. 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 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
1 (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155
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.22 of 2022 on
the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Hanumakonda,
against the petitioner 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
