IMPORTANT POINT
Direction for Police investigation – 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 thereon.

ORDER

D. Ramesh, J.—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