The Court dismissed a Writ Petition challenging the initiation of criminal proceedings against petitioners accused of cheating and forgery against a bank. The Court held that serious allegations warrant police investigation under Sec 156(3) CrPC and could not be quashed at this stage.
Writ petition dismissed with no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5742 of 2012
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed seeking a mandamus declaring the proceedings initiated against the petitioners in Crime No.927 of 2011 on the file of Panjagutta Police Station, Hyderabad, as illegal and arbitrary.
The second respondent bank has filed a private complaint before the learned XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, City Criminal Courts, Hyderabad, against the petitioners and seven others on the ground that they have committed the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465 and 34 IPC and Section 120-B IPC. It is stated in the said complaint that the petitioners and seven others were hand in glove with premeditated plan and cheated the second respondent bank for their monetary gains. It is alleged that the petitioners and other accused are members of one family and they formed a partnership firm under the name and style of M/s. Vasundara Pharma Distributors and have projected themselves as partners of the said firm, and by producing false documents with speculative projections, they have managed the bank, obtained loan of Rs.75,00,000/- and executed a loan cum
guarantee agreement. It is further alleged that they have produced fabricated documents, which were purposely prepared for the purpose of monetary gains and to deceive the bank, and all the nine individuals have conspired together and duped the bank for their financial gains on the name of retention of non-existing business. On filing such complaint, the matter was referred to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. There upon, a case in Crime No.927 of 2011 was registered against the petitioners and seven others, on the file of Panjagutta Police Station.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were retired as partners of the aforesaid firm and the second respondent bank has not filed any document in support of its complaint.
In view of the fact that the allegations levelled against the petitioners and others are serious in nature, this Court is of the view that the same is a matter for investigation by the police. At this stage, when the investigation in Crime No.927 of 2011 registered against the petitioners and others on the file of Panjagutta Police Station is pending, this Court cannot accept the plea of the petitioners that they have retired from the alleged
partnership firm, so as to entertain this Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to invalidate the proceedings initiated against the petitioners in the aforesaid crime.
For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J
2nd MARCH, 2012. kvni
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can accept the plea that petitioners retired from the partnership firm to quash the police proceedings while investigation is pending.
Whether allegations of cheating and forgery against petitioners constitute a matter requiring police investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
THE PETITIONERS
THE SECOND RESPONDENT BANK
R. SUBHASH REDDY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
