Telangana High Court
Kedala Pavan Kumar, Warangal And ... vs Public Prosecutor, Karimnagar And ... on 18 February, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.11860 of 2015
ORDER:
The present Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/A.1
and A.2 to quash the proceedings against them in FIR.No.447 of
2015 of Karimnagar I-Town Police Station, Karimnagar. The
offences alleged against the petitioners are for the offences under
Sections 420, 465, 120-B r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code (for short
'IPC').
2. The facts of the case are that on 01.11.2015, the police
received a private complaint from the 2nd respondent which was
referred by the Court against the petitioners stating that he is one
of the partners of Devishetty Pharmacy Medical shop along with
Devishetty Srikanth Rao who is also Chairman of Devishetty
Hospital. It is stated that A.2 is a Doctor and one of the partners
of Sunrise Hospital, Karimnagar and he used to come to the said
hospital to meet Lw.1 and developed acquaintance. A.2 also used
to run chits worth Rs.1 lakh to Rs.5 lakhs, which was encouraged
by Lw.1 to join in the chit. Accordingly, the complainant joined in
the chit worth Rs.5 lakhs payable @ Rs.20,000/- per month for 25
months and he paid instalments regularly and lifted the chit in
15th month and became successful bidder for an amount of Rs.3
Lakhs. That while lifting the chit amount, A.2 collected a signed
blank pro-note and blank cheque as a collateral security and
instead of handing over the chit amount to the complainant, A.2
handed over the same to Lw.1 and after receiving the prize money,
Lw.1 gave assurance to the complainant that it is his chit amount
and he will adjust the earlier paid amount, and to continue to pay
the future instalments, but failed to do so. As such disputes arose
between Lw.1 and complainant, thereby handed over the medical
shop to Lw.1 and became defaulter of chit amount of Rs.80,000/-.
Instead of demanding the amount from Lw.1, A.2 started
demanding the amount from complainant and A.2 in collusion with
A.1 created fake documents in the name of complainant as
borrower by forging his signature. A civil suit was also filed
against the complainant in O.S.No.117 of 2015 on the file of I-
Additional District Judge, Warangal. As such, requested the police
to take action against the petitioners.
3. Heard Sri Chekuri Yadagiri, learned counsel for the
petitioners, Sri Ponnam Mahesh Babu, learned counsel for the 2nd
respondent and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for
the 1st respondent.
4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that
while filing complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C, the mandatory
provisions are not followed and no affidavit is filed by the
complainant. Therefore, the complaint itself is not maintainable
and the proceedings against the petitioners have to be quashed. In
support of his contentions, learned counsel relied on the judgment
in T.Kamalakar and others Vs State of Telangana and another 1,
wherein in similar circumstances, the Court held as under :
"12. Hence, considering the above judgments of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Priyanka Srivatsava's case (supra) and in Babu
Venkatesh's case (supra) and as the complainant failed to file his
affidavit in support of the complaint and has also failed to
disclose about the compliance of Section 154 (1) & (3) and the
order of Magistrate also would not disclose any application of
mind before referring the matter to the police and the civil suit
was also decreed against the defendant, considering the fact that
he admitted in his cross-examination about his hand-writing on
Ex.A.1 and his counter signature on the reverse of it, it is
considered fit to quash the proceedings against the petitioners, as
the continuation of proceedings is only an abuse of process of
law."
1 2022 (2) ALD (Crl) 594 (TS)
5. In view of the Priyanka Srivastava and another Vs State of
Uttar Pradesh and others 2 , as affidavit is not filed and the
mandatory provisions are not followed, the proceedings against the
petitioners are liable to be quashed.
6. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent would also submit
that no affidavit is filed while filing the complaint.
7. Considering the submissions made by both the counsel and
in view of the observations made in Para 12 of the above judgment,
the proceedings against the petitioners in FIR.No.447 of 2015 of
Karimnagar I Town Police Station, are liable to be quashed.
8. Accordingly, the Criminal petition is allowed quashing the
proceedings against the petitioners in FIR.No.447 of 2015 of
Karimnagar I-Town Police Station, Karimnagar. Miscellaneous
applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
_______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date :18.02.2025
Rds
2 (2015) 6 SCC 287
