IMPORTANT POINT
The court ruled that vague allegations without specific evidence do not justify criminal proceedings, emphasizing the need for concrete accusations to establish liability.

ORDER :

Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, J.

The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, [for short ‘Cr.P.C’] has been filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.4 and 5, seeking to quash the proceedings against them in Crime No.31 of 2019 on the file of Mylavaram Police Station, YSR District, registered for the offence under Sections 406 and 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.,[for short ‘IPC’]

2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:

a. Respondent No.2/Complainant has been doing cultivation and eking out his livelihood. He kept his 1000 bags of Bengal Gram each of 60 kgs., in Gugudu Kullayi Swami Rural warehouse on 27.02.2018. Subsequently on 13.03.2018 he kept his 1000 bags of Bengal Gram as security deposit and obtained loan of Rs.14,40,000/- from Canara Bank, Proddatur Branch. Before granting the said loan, Accused Nos.6 and 7, who are the Chief Manager and Branch Manager of the Bank respectively, physically verified the stock.

b. Thereafter, when Respondent No.2 tried to discharge his loan and get released his stock, Accused Nos.6 and 7 have been postponing the same on one pretext or the other. On enquiry, Respondent No.2 came to know that Accused Nos.6 and 7 in collusion with Accused Nos.1 to 5 deceived Respondent No.2, committed breach of trust, sold away his stock along with the stock of other farmers for illegal gain and thereby cheated them.

c. When Respondent No.2 questioned Accused Nos.6 and 7, they threatened him and asked him to do whatever he wants to do. As such, Respondent No.2 lodged the present complaint against all the Accused Nos.1 to 7 and the same was registered as a case in Crime No.31 of 2019 for the offence under Sections 406 and 420 IPC.

Grounds for Quashment:

3. Being aggrieved by the registration of the said crime, Petitioners/ Accused Nos.4 and 5 filed the present petition seeking quashment of the proceedings against them on the following grounds.

a. Petitioners are innocent of the offence alleged against them and the Complainant falsely implicated them, since they happened to be the daughter and son-in-law of the sole proprietor of the warehouse.

b. Petitioners have nothing to do with the said warehouse and the sole proprietor of the said godown is Accused No.1.

c. Petitioners do not have any share or interest in the business as well as the activities of the said godown.

d. Petitioners are not parties to the loan transaction of the Complainant with Accused Nos.6 and 7 and they do not have any knowledge about the stock kept in the said godown.

e. Petitioners never resided either in Jammalamadugu or any place in Kadapa District.

f. No prima facie case is made out against the Petitioners. As such, continuation of proceedings against them is an abuse of process of law.

Arguments Advanced at the Bar

4. Heard Ms. Sodum Anvesha, learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State/Respondent No.1. Despite service of notice, none appeared for Respondent No.2.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners/Accused Nos.4 and 5 in elaboration to what was stated in the Petition would submit that Petitioner No.2/Accused No.5 is the son-in-law died and Petitioner No.1/Accused No.4 is the daughter of Accused No.1. The marriage of the Petitioners was performed on 15.02.205 and Petitioner No.2/Accused No.5 was working in Police Department in Kurnool District. Learned counsel would further submit that there are no specific allegations in the complaint against the Petitioners and criminal liability cannot be fastened against the Petitioners, who are not with Accused No.1. Accused No.4 is a married daughter staying with her husband in Kurnool District. Simply because Petitioners are the daughter and son-inlaw of Accused No.1, they cannot be vicariously liable for the alleged act of Accused No.1. Moreover, learned counsel would submit that Petitioner/Accused No.5 died. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the Petitioners has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Ap