Allowed

Smt. Chatakala Veena v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC6 Dec 2023CRLP/6581/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR registered following a private complaint for financial fraud. The Court relied on Supreme Court precedents requiring affidavits for such complaints to invoke Section 156(3) jurisdiction and found the procedural defect warranted quashing.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 74 of 2014 dated 31.01.2014 registered by SHO, Visakhapatnam III Town Police Station, is quashed.

Smt. Chatakala Veena Vs State of… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

X'"' ■

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAV, WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBER' I TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE |

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 6581 of 2018

¶6

Between:

¶7

Smt. Chatakala Veena, W/o. Chatakala Venkata Swamy, aged about 50 years, Occ; House wife, R/o. Flat No.9, D.No. 31-28-44/9, Amrutha Sai Teia Residency, Kurnammapalem, Visakhapatnam

¶8

...Petitioner/Accused No.2

¶9

AND

¶10

State of Andhra Pradesh, Through SHO, Visakhapatnam III Town Police Station Visakhapatnam City, rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi

¶11

l.p.B.I. Bank Ltd RAC Balaji Mangalagiri Chambers, 9-29/6-1, 5-1, 4*" floor Signatory Assistant Manager/ Authorized

¶12

...Respondent/Defacto Complainant

¶13

, , .. Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances Stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in FIR No. 74 of 2014 on the file of SHO. Visakhapatnam III Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam City.

¶14

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri R Siva Sai Swarup, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2.

¶15

The Court made the following;

¶16

THE HON*BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.6581 OF 2018

¶17

ORDER;

¶18

The 2*1^ respondent herein filed a private complaint under Section 190(1)(a) read with Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the offences punishable under sections 120-A & B, 406, 420, 468, 471 read with Section^34ofthe Indian Penal Code (for short ‘I.P.C’) alleging that^{theaccusedNo.l} 8& 2 have availed a housing loan from IDBI Bank Ltb., Visakhaptanam, under Loan Account No.816675100006758 and the 2'idrespondent is a co-obligant/borrower and the^wifeofthe 1^St accused purchased the schedule mentioned property by availing loan by mortgaging the title deeds and other linked^documentsand have failed to re-pay the installment, at a given point^oftimeand became a chronic defaulter.

¶19

On enquiries made, the complainant bank came to know from the reliable sources that they had obtained^theloans fraudulently with an indigent intention with conspiracy of the accused and thereby caused monetary loss to the bank.

¶20

Basing on the said allegations, a private complaint^was filed, on the file of the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. The learned Magistrate forwarded the said private compliant to the Station House Officer, III Town Police Station,

¶21

¶22

Visakhapatnam under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. On receiving the said complaint from the Court, the police registered^theCrimeas FIR No. 74 of the 2014, dated 31.01.2014 for the offences referred supra.

¶23

The said FIR is assailed before the Court, on the sole ground that the learned Magistrate has erroneously^forwardedthe complaint without taking any affidavit from the 2nd respondent/complainant. Hence, he would pray to quash the proceedings by relying on the judgment of Priyanka^Srivastava and another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reportedⁱⁿ (2015) 6 see 287 and the latest judgment of the HonT)le Apex Court reported in Babu Venkatesh and others vs. State of Karnataka and another reported in (2022) 5 SCC 639 for the proportion that; when a private complaint filed and^when it was .A referred to the police under Section 156(3), it has to be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the complainant to seek^invocation jurisdiction of the Magistrate. The very purpose of filing affidavit is that the person making complaint should be conscious^andalso endeavor to see that no false affidavit is made and to verify the veracity of allegations in view of the allegations made in the complaint. It is because once an affidavit is found to be false, he will be liable for prosecution in accordance with law.^{Thiswilldeter}

¶24

¶25

¶26

the complainant to casually invoke the authority of the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.

¶27

Whereas, in the present case, whether an affidavit^was filed or not, there is no such appearance from the respondent. despite receiving of the notice.

¶28

It is pertinent to mention here that the respondentBank has filed the suit for recovery of the amount^{andthesaidsuit} was decreed ex-parte and it is at execution stage. 7. As seen from the record, there is no affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent-Bank before the learned Magistrate before forwarding complaint from the Magistrate to the Police for investigation of the case. In view of the judgment referred supra. the Criminal Petition is liable to be allowed.

¶29

Accordingly, the present Criminal Petition is allowed and FIR No. 74 of the 2014, dated 31.01.2014 before^the Station House Officer, III Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam is hereby quashed.

¶30

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pendingⁱⁿ this

¶31

Criminal Petition shall stand closed.

¶32

SD/- N. NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶33

¶34