Justice S. Ravi Kumar dismissed a criminal petition filed to quash discharge orders. The court held there was no illegality or wrong appreciation of material by the courts below in discharging accused persons accused of cheating and misappropriation.
Criminal Petition dismissed as devoid of merits.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
TUESDAY THE TWENTYNINETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEEN
PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1804 OF 2012
Between :
V. Madan Mohan … Petitioner/Complainant V/s. The State of Andhra Pradesh Through Station House Officer, West Police Station Tirupati, Chittoor district, Represented by Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad & Ors. … Respondents/Accused
Counsel for Petitioner : Sri R.V. Chalapathi Counsel for Respondents : Public Prosecutor for R-1 Sri Sivalenka Ramachandra Prasad for R-6 and R-10 Smt. D.Sangeetha Reddy for R2 to R4, R7 to R9, R-11 and R-12
The court made the following : [order follows]
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1804 OF 2012
O R D E R :
This Criminal Petition is to quash orders of IV-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupati, Chittoor district in Criminal Revision Petition No.39 of 2010 dated 21/09/2011 whereunder orders in Crl.MP.No. 3903 of 2007 in CC.No. 382 of 2007 dated 09/07/2010 passed by II-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati, is confirmed.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of this criminal petition are as follows:
Petitioner herein filed a complaint under section 200 Cr.P.C. before II-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati, against twelve persons for alleged offences of cheating and misappropriation of funds. The said complaint was forwarded to Police under section 156 [3] Cr.P.C. for investigation and Police registered F.I.R. in Crime No. 337 of 2005 for offences under section 419, 403 and 120-B IPC thereafter investigated into the matter. After investigation, Police filed charge sheet against all the twelve persons for offences under section
419, 403 and 120-B of IPC.
3. Respondents 2 to 12 herein filed a petition under section 239 Cr.P.C. before II-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati for discharge and the learned Magistrate after considering material on record, allowed the petition by discharging the accused i.e., respondents 2 to 12 herein. Aggrieved by the discharge order passed by the II-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati, petitioner herein preferred Crl.RP.No. 39 of 2010 and IV-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupati by an order dated 21/09/2011 confirmed the orders of learned Magistrate and dismissed Crl.RP.No. 39 of 2010. Now aggrieved by the orders of courts below, present Criminal Petition is filed invoking section 482 Cr.P.C.
4. Heard both sides.
5. The main contention of Advocate for Petitioner is that complainant is Secretary-cum-Correspondent of Educational Society registered under the Societies Registration Act and respondents 2 to 12 herein have cheated the society and also misappropriated funds to have wrongful gain. It is submitted that trial court only basing on inquiry report of Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Special Regional Office, Kadapa discharged the respondents 2 to 12 herein, though there is prima facie material collected during investigation. He further submitted that
Revisional Court found fault with trial court for relying on the inquiry report of Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner but observed that there are other reasons which are sound for discharging respondents 2 to 12. He submitted that except that report, there are no other reasons assigned by the learned Magistrate, therefore, order of Revisional Court has to be set aside.
6. On the other hand, Advocates for respondents submitted that both Magistrate Court and Revisional Court have rightly considered the material on record and there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings.
7. Now the point for determination is whether the orders of Magistrate Court and Revisional Court are legal, correct and proper ?
8. P O I N T : I have perused the orders of both courts under challenge. Learned trial court while relying on inquiry report of Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Special Regional Office, Kadapa also considered the aspect of non-examination of victims by the Investigating Agency. This report of Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner is taken as a supporting material for the material on record but the courts below has not solely relied on the report of Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner. In this case, 161 Cr.P.C statements are not filed to
counter check the correctness of order of the learned Magistrate.
9. As seen from the orders under challenge, the learned Magistrate considered not only report of Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner but also other material and came to the conclusion that there is no prima facie material against respondents 2 to 12 herein for framing charges. I do not find any wrong appreciation of material or any illegality in the orders of both the courts below. In fact, the learned Revisional Judge has rightly considered all the points raised on behalf of petitioner and came to a right conclusion and it is a well reasoned order and I do not find any grounds to disturb those two orders by invoking the powers under section 482 Cr.P.C.
10. For the above reasons, this Criminal Petition is dismissed as devoid of merits.
___________________ JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR .
29/04/2014 I s L
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1804 OF 2012
Circulation No.293 Date:29/04/2014 Court Master: I s L Computer No.43
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the orders of the Magistrate and Revisional Court discharging the accused are legal and require interference in a criminal petition under section 482 Cr.P.C.
Whether the sufficiency of prima facie material for framing charges justifies setting aside the discharge order.
7 provisions across 2 enactments
V. Madan Mohan
The State of Andhra Pradesh Through Station House Officer, West Police Station Tirupati
Respondents 2 to 12
S. RAVI KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
