SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(AP) 375

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
D.RAMESH, J.
M.Shyama Sundar Naidu, Chittoor Dt 2 Otrs. – Appellants
Versus
The State Of AP., Rep Pp And Anr. – Respondent
Criminal Petition No.4438 of 2016
Decided on : 30-04-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : K. RAMAMOHAN

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 -Article 226 –Indian Penal Code, 1860 -Section 342, 347, 420, 448, 192,193, 506, 34, 323, 467, 468, 471, 120-B - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482, 190, 200, 407, 156(3), 161 - Financial Institutions Act, 1993 - Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 -Punishment for wrongful confinement - Punishment for house-trespass -Fabricating false evidence -Punishment for false evidence - Using as true such declaration knowing it to be false -Cognizance of offences by Magistrates-Punishment for criminal intimidation- Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt -Forgery of valuable security, will -Forgery for purpose of cheating- Saving of inherent powers of High Court -Several persons in furtherance of common intention - Power of High Court to transfer cases and appeals -Wrongful confinement to extort property, or constrain to illegal act -Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property - Empowers all the High Courts of India to issue the writs -Whether any cognizable case is remotely made out - It is also to be noted that when a borrower of financial institution covered under SARFAESI Act, invokes jurisdiction under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and also there is a separate procedure under Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, an attitude of more care, caution and circumspection has to be adhered - Held, Court is very clear that while referring matter to police under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., Magistrate has to apply mind; but in instant case, though there is delay of nearly 8 months, without applying its mind, learned Magistrate has simply referred the matter to police for investigation - Apex court has clearly observed that summoning or referring matter or for prosecuting any criminal case is a serious matter and criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course - Order of Magistrate should reflect that he has applied his mind to facts of case and law applicable to and it has to examine nature of allegations made in complaint and documentary evidence in support - But in instant case, without applying its mind, simply on basis of complaint, on same day it has been referred to police for investigation –Ordered Accordingly.

ORDER :

This Criminal Petition is filed assailing the proceedings in C.C.No.89 of 2013 on the file of the V Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tirupathi and to quash the same invoking the power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [for short Cr.P.C.].

2. Heard Sri N.Ramesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners 1 and 2, Sri N.Pavan Kumar/3rd petitioner, appearing party-in person and Sri T. Sricharan, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent as well as the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent-State.

3. The 2nd respondent, who is defacto complainant herein, has filed a complaint under section 190 and 200 Cr.P.C. before the Court of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad on 29.06. 2012. On receipt of the said complaint, on the same day, the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad referred the complaint to Nallakunta Police Station, which came to be registered as FIR No.165 of 2012 and after completion of investigation police filed charge sheet. The same was numbered as C.C.No.89 of 2013 on the file of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The allegations leveled against the petitioners are under sections 342, 347, 420, 448, 192,193, 506 IPC read with 34 of IPC. Initially said proceedings were challenged in Criminal Petition Nos.13665 of 2013 and 13666 of 2013 before the composite High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad and the same was dismissed by the High Court on 06.03.2014.

4. Previously, the 2nd petitioner herein also filed a private complaint against the defacto complainant/2nd respondent herein and her husband for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [for short N.I. Act], which was taken on file as STC No.441 of 2012 on the file of II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tirupathi, Chittoor District; later it was renumbered as STC No.83 of 2013 on the file of V Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tirupathi. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent herein has filed Transfer Criminal Petition No.280 of 2013 under Section 407 of Cr.P.C. before the composite High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad seeking to withdraw the STC No.83 of 2013 on the file of V Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tirupathi and transfer the same to the Court of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad at Nampally, to be tried along with CC.No.89 of 2013. However said petition was disposed of and held that –

    “Having regard to the age and health conditions of the accused in CC.No.89 of 2013, as the trial in STC No.83 of 2013 has already commenced and with a view to avoid conflicting judgments, this court is of the view that ends of justice would be met if CC No.89 of 2013 on the file of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Hyderabad at Nampally, is transferred to the Court of V Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Tirupathi, to be tried along with STC No.83 of 2013. However, the presence of the accused in both the cases, which are to be tried in the Court of V Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tirupathi, is dispensed with except on the dates when their presence is specifically required by the Court.”

5. The case of the petitioners herein is that the defacto complainant/2nd respondent’s husband was working as Chief Manager of Indian Bank, Tirupathi; the petitioners 1 to 3 have joint savings account and fixed deposits with Indian Bank, Tirupathi and several transactions were done with huge amounts. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent got acquaintance with the petitioners 1 and 2. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent herein and her husband approached the 2nd petitioner and borrowed money from the petitioners on 08.03.2010 and 13.06.2010; in total an amount of Rs.50,00,000/-was lent to the 2nd respondent and her husband, in consideration of which, they have executed a demand promissory note dated 13.06.2010, jointly and severally in

                        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                        1
                        2
                        3
                        4
                        5
                        6
                        7
                        8
                        9
                        10
                        11
                        SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                        supreme today icon
                        logo-black

                        An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

                        Please visit our Training & Support
                        Center or Contact Us for assistance

                        qr

                        Scan Me!

                        India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                        For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                        whatsapp-icon Back to top