Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2009 Supreme(SC) 561

Supreme Court of India
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.B. SINHA & THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA
Chunduru Siva Ram Krishna & Another
Versus
Peddi Ravindra Babu & Another
Criminal Appeal No.549 of 2009 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.2991 of 2007) With Criminal Appeal No.550 of 2009 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.5072 of 2007)
Decided On : 25-03-2009

Advocates Appeared: For the Appellants :G. Ramakrishna Prasad, CK. Sucharita, Advocates. For the Respondents:Altaf Fatima, D. Bharathi Reddy, Advocates

IMPORTANT POINT
When allegations are bald and vague and no direct role of the accused is ascribed, it would be futile to continue with the prosecution.

Headnote:Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 482 – Complaint and charge sheet Allegations against all the accused persons, but mainly directed against accused 1 – Allegations against accused persons except accused 1, the appellants, bald and vague – No definite role ascribed against the appellants – No case can be made out against appellants – Prosecution against appellants would be futile. (Para 19, 20)
       (1981) 2 SCC 454; (1983) 1 SCC 1; 1992 Suppl. (1) SCC 335; (1998) 5 SCC 749; (2002) 1 SCC 241 – Relied upon
       Facts of the case:
       One Chunduru Subba Rao, Accused No. 1 was having a rice mill at Village Lakshmipuram in District Guntur, Andhra Pradesh under the name and style of "C.S.R. Rice Mills". He was the sole proprietor of the said rice mill. All the accused are related.
       Accused No. 1 had been into rice mill business for about 20 years and had been purchasing paddy from the local paddy growers in the village and that he issued vouchers to some of them while to others promissory notes ranging from Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 3 lakh were executed as security towards the purchase of paddy. He had also obtained Rs. 30 lakhs as loan from State Bank of India, Ponnur and remodeled the rice mill and fortified his goodwill.
       However, his business has declined and consequently he owed debts to the banks, several financial institutions and to public and that his liabilities aggregated to Rs. 89,51,600/-. Therefore, on 24.06.2005, he filed an insolvency petition in which he stated that he was sustaining loss for 5-6 years and his aggregated liabilities was approximately Rs. 89,51,600/. He also got published in the newspaper regarding the factum of filing of the said insolvency petition.
       The paddy suppliers, who are respondents herein, also lodged a report dated 2.7.2005 against Accused No. 1 and his family members with the Police for offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
       On 18.9.2006, police filed a charge sheet bearing in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ponnur under Sections 406, 420 and 424 read with Section 37 IPC against Accused No. 1 to Accused No. 9 which included both the appellants herein. He surrendered before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ponnur on 19.7.2005.
       The High Court granted bail and directed release of A-6 to A-8 and A2 to A-4 including the appellants herein.
       On 25.11.2006 all the accused i.e. Accused Nos. 1 to Accused No. 9 including the appellants herein (Accused No. 2 and Accused No. 3) jointly filed a Criminal Petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C.. which was dismissed by the High Court.
       Finding of the Court:
       Continuing with prosecution of the appellants would be futile.
       Result:
       Appeals allowed.

Judgment :

Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Both these appeals are being taken up together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order as these appeals have been preferred against the common judgment and order dated 01.03.2007 passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court at Hyderabad. By the aforesaid common judgment and order the learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the petition filed by Accused Nos. 1 to 9 praying for quashing of the complaint filed against them by holding that the allegations made in the said complaint do not make out a case for quashing of the complaint.

3. In order to appreciate the contentions raised before us by the counsel appearing for the parties it would be necessary to set out the brief facts leading to filing of the aforesaid complaint dated 02.07.2005. One Chunduru Subba Rao, Accused No. 1 was having a rice mill at Village Lakshmipuram in District Guntur, Andhra Pradesh under the name and style of "C.S.R. Rice Mills". He was the sole proprietor of the said rice mill. Accused Nos. 2 to Accused No. 5 are the family members of Accused No. 1 whereas Accused Nos. 6 to Accused No. 8 are son-in-law, the daughter of Accused No. 1 and the brother of the son-in-law of Accused No.1 respectively. Accused No. 9 has also been arrayed as one of the accused in the complaint filed and he is the younger brother-in-law of Accused No. 1. Accused No. 2 and Accused No. 3 are the two sons of Accused No. 1 who are aged about 28 and 25 years respectively. Accused No. 2 is stated to be doing his job after completing his graduation from Nagarjuna University, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh and his post graduation in Master of Computer Applications under University of Madras. On the other hand, Accused No. 3 is stated to be studying Engineering course in Bapatla, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh. It is, therefore, disclosed from the aforesaid facts that all the family members of Accused No. 1 have been arrayed as accused persons in the complaint filed.

4. It is disclosed from the records that Accused No. 1 had been into rice mill business for about 20 years and had been purchasing paddy from the local paddy growers in the village and that he issued vouchers to some of them while to others promissory notes ranging from Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 3 lakh were executed as security towards the purchase of paddy. He had also obtained Rs. 30 lakhs as loan from State Bank of India, Ponnur

and remodeled the rice mill and fortified his goodwill. However, his business has declined and consequently he owed debts to the banks, several financial institutions and to public and that his liabilities aggregated to Rs. 89,51,600/-. Therefore, on 24.06.2005, he filed an insolvency petition bearing I.P. No. 11 of 2005 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Baptala, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh in which he stated that he was sustaining loss for 5-6 years and his aggregated liabilities was approximately Rs. 89,51,600/. He also got published in the newspaper regarding the factum of filing of the said insolvency petition.

5. Consequent upon filing of the aforesaid insolvency petition several representations were made to the District Collector by the villagers making allegations against Accused No. 1 and his family members. The said representations were endorsed by the District Collector to the police for investigation. The paddy suppliers, who are respondents herein, also lodged a report dated 2.7.2005 against Accused No. 1 and his family members with the Station House Officer, Kakumanu Police Station in Kakumanu Mandal, District Guntur for offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

6. On 18.9.2006, the Station House Officer, Kakumanu filed a charge sheet bearing C.C. No. 110 of 2006 in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ponnur under Sections 406, 420 and 424 read with Section 37 IPC against Accused No. 1 to Accused No. 9 which included both the appellants herein. I

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2009 Supreme(SC) 561

IMPORTANT POINTWhen allegations are bald and vague and no direct role of the accused is ascribed, it would be futile to continue with the prosecution.

Cases Referred (7)

IMPORTANT POINT
When allegations are bald and vague and no direct role of the accused is ascribed, it would be futile to continue with the prosecution.