THE HON’BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

ORDER:

This criminal petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.1 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.571 of 2021 on the file of XXIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Hayathnagar, Rachakonda, for the offences under Sections 420 and 406 IPC.

2. Heard Mr. P. Vamsheedhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1-State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent of the offences alleged against him and that even if the entire complaint is taken into consideration, no offences under Sections 420 and 406 IPC are made out against the petitioner. He further submitted that during the pendency of the investigation, the respondent No.2-de facto complainant has given representation to the Investigating Officer for withdrawing case against the petitioner as it was learnt by respondent No.2 that the petitioner has wound up his chit business 4 years back and that without the knowledge of the petitioner, accused No.2 played fraud and collected the amount as if the petitioner-accused No.1 is in continuation of his chit fund business. He further submitted that in the present crime, the respondent No.2 is alleged to be the only victim and in view of the settlement arrived between accused No.2 and the respondent No.2, continuance of proceedings against the petitioner herein would be an abuse of process of law and therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that a compromise has been entered by the accused No.2 with the respondent No.2-de facto complainant wherein the accused No.2 has stated that he is responsible for payment of the amounts to the de facto complainant and that if he fails to pay the said amount, the respondent No.2 has every right to take civil and criminal action against him.

5. Perused the record.

6. A copy of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is filed along with the petition and the said MOU was entered into between accused No.2 and the de facto complainant-respondent No.2. The said document cannot form a basis to quash the proceedings against the petitioner herein, who is accused No.1. As per the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the terms of the MOU, the said MOU was entered into during the course of investigation. But, the recitals of the charge sheet point out that accused Nos.1 and 2 have committed the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 IPC, wherein it is alleged that the petitioner and accused No.2 have induced the subscribers to enter into chits and that the de facto complainant has subscribed two chits and has made payments and when she asked to give the first chit amount, the accused failed to give the same. The charge sheet is filed after thorough investigation and when there are specific allegations leveled against the petitioner herein, it is not proper to quash the proceedings based on the MOU. The said MOU and the veracity of the witnesses need to be tested during the course of trial. Hence, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of the petition by dispensing with the presence of the petitioner before the trial court.

7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed dispensing with the attendance of the petitioner before the trial court, provided he is represented by a counsel before the trial court on every date of hearing and he shall appear before the trial court whenever his presence is required during the course of trial.

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

____________________________ JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA November 11, 2025 KTL