Quashed

Vaddadhi Ramana v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC24 Nov 2022CRLP/7628/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court quashed a criminal case involving allegations of cheating under the IPC. The court held that the demise of the primary complainant, coupled with contradictory earlier statements and a lack of specific forgery allegations, rendered the trial futile and incapable of bringing home the offence.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Case No.1201 of 2020 and all pending miscellaneous petitions are quashed/closed.

Vaddadhi Ramana Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Cheating and Forgery | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.7628 of 2022

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

The petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.1201 of

¶4

2020 on the file of II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam for offences under Section 420, 468, 471 and 403 of Indian Penal Code.

¶5

The complaint against the petitioner is as follows:

¶6

LW1 sold away the house owned by her and

¶7

deposited the sale consideration in various banks in Visakhapatnam city. She filed a complaint before the police that the petitioner had withdrawn Rs.41,88,000/- out of the said deposits without her consent and had cheated her. The petitioner was arrested in the course of investigation and thereafter a charge sheet was filed against the petitioner setting out the above provisions of law.

¶8

The petitioner has approached this Court to quash the said case.

¶9

¶10

It is submitted that LW1 who is the de facto- complainant has passed away.

¶11

The petitioner draws the attention of this Court to the statement dated 10.03.2018 recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. wherein the de facto- complainant had stated that the petitioner had obtained her cheques without her knowledge and had withdrawn Rs.41,88,000/- without her knowledge. Subsequently, the de facto- complainant had again been examined on 23.12.2019. In the statement given by her on this day, the de facto- complainant had stated that she was in the habit of giving cheques to the petitioner for withdrawing cash on her behalf and in that process the petitioner had withdrawn money and paid her only a part of the money withdrawn while retaining the remaining money with him.

¶12

The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that this contradiction between the two statements clearly shows that the allegation against the petitioner cannot be brought home in the trial. He would further contend that the demise of the petitioner have effectively resulted in a

¶13

¶14

situation where the trial would not be able to throw up any result. He would also point out that all the other witnesses listed in the charge sheet are witnesses who can at best state that the money had been withdrawn by him from various banks on the basis of cheques signed by the de facto- complainant. He has further submitted that there is no allegation of forgery in the charge sheet as there is no specific allegation that the signature of the de facto- complainant had been forged by the petitioner. He would submit that in such circumstances continuation of a trial which cannot bring home any offence against him would be a futile exercise and requires to be quashed.

¶15

Learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the LW2 who is the brother of the de facto- complainant has given a statement that the said amounts had been withdrawn by the petitioner without the knowledge and consent of the de facto- complainant. Further, there is an allegation of forgery by the LW2.

¶16

The statement of LW2 would show that the said

¶17

statement is being made by him on the basis of assumptions

¶18

¶19

and not on the basis of personal knowledge. In the circumstances, the evidence of the LW2 may not assist the prosecution.

¶20

In view of the fact that the main complainant, who could have brought home the offence against the petitioner has passed away and there is no material available with the prosecution to bring home the offence against the petitioner and in view of the contradictory statements of LW1, no further purpose would be achieved by allowing the trial to go on.

¶21

In the circumstances, the C.C.No.1201 of 2020 on the file of II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam is quashed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶22

Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.

¶23

____________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J

¶24

24.11.2022 RKS

¶25

¶26

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶27

CRIMINAL PETITION No.7628 of 2022

¶28

24.11.2022

¶29

RKS

Vaddadhi Ramana v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vaddadhi Ramana v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

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

Mamidi Anil Kumar Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Gade Pramada Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Reddy Surya Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Ganta Venkateswara Rao Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Asi Bhupathi Eswar Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

V.Janaki Ramaraju Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh