Allowed

S.Rajeswari v. State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC17 Sept 2019CRLP/4084/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allows a criminal petition to quash proceedings under Sections 420 IPC, 109 IPC and Section 4 of the Money Chits Act, 1978. The court quashed the case considering the dispute was settled amicably via a notarized affidavit and had no adverse impact on society.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in Crime No.329 of 2018 before Alipiri Police Station, Tirupati, Chittor District are quashed against the petitioners.

S.Rajeswari Vs State of Ap — Money Laundering | Andhra Pradesh HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.4084 of 2019

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The petitioners/A1 to A4 seek to quash proceedings against them in Cr.No.329 of 2018 of Alipiri Police Station, Chittor District, registered for the offences under Sections 420, 109 I.P.C and Section 4 of the Money Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978.

¶5

2. The complaint allegations briefly are that the defacto complainant has subscribed amounts with A1 and A2, who are running private chits. It is alleged that about Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees eight lakhs only) was subscribed by her. There after the said amount was not returned to her. When demanded, they abused her in filthy language. A3 and A4 were supporting A1 and A2 and all of them did not repay the amounts to the complainant and other subscribers. The police registered the crime and investigation is reported pending.

¶6

3. Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned counsel for 2^nd respondent and learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶7

4. Learned Counsel for petitioners would submit that due to some money disputes, the defacto complainant has lodged report with the police and there was a compromise between the complainant and accused and thereby the defacto complainant submitted notarized affidavit before the Station House Officer, Alipiri Police Station, stating that at the intervention of elders and well-wishers, the accused have agreed to give back the amounts paid by her along with interest.

¶8

¶9

Therefore, she was no longer interested to pursue the Crime No.329 of 2018. Learned counsel further submits that similar affidavits were given by other subscribers also.

¶10

5. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 confirms about the affidavit submitted by the defacto complainant with the concerned police and submits that the issue was settled amicably between the parties and, therefore, the defacto complainant is no more interested to prosecute the complaint and she has no objection to quash the proceedings. Learned Public Prosecutor left the matter to the discretion of the Court. Recording the above respective submissions, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in Crime No.329 of 2018 on the file of Alipiri Police Station, Tirupati, Chittor District are quashed against the petitioners/A1 to A4 considering that the crime has no adverse impact on the society and that it is only a money matter among the accused, the defacto complainant and other subscribers.

¶11

6 . As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶12

_________________________ U.DURGA PRASAD RAO,J

¶13

Date: 17.09.2019 RJS.

¶14

¶15

¶16

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO

¶17

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4084 OF 2019

¶18

17^th September, 2019

¶19

RJS

S.Rajeswari v. State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Rajeswari v. State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Y.Hari Babu Vs State of Ap

P.Satyavathi Vs State of Ap

K.Lakshmaiah Vs State of Ap

P.Manoj Kumar Vs State of Ap

M. Gangadhar Reddy Vs Apgenco Rep. by its Managing Director

Yallamilli Jaya Priyanaka Vs Rayudu Veera Venkata Satyanarayana