Criminal Petition filed by the accused to quash criminal proceedings for cheating under the Telangana Chit Fund Act. The court held that no offence was made out due to lack of evidence and quashed the proceedings.
Proceedings in C.C. No.29 of 2017 are quashed and bail bonds, if any, are cancelled.
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.
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE B. SIVA SANKARA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6994 of 2017
ORDER:
The petitioner is accused No.1 in C.C. No.29 of 2017 on the file of XXI Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Medchal, which was taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 75 of Telangana Chit Fund Act, which is an outcome of Crime No.11 of 2016 of SHO, Alwal, Cyberabad, on the report of 2nd respondent— defacto complainant by name Pesari Vanaja Reddy, dated 04.01.2016. The petitioner is now seeking to quash the said proceedings.
2
Dr.SSRB,J Crlp_6994_2017
asked him to go in for monthly chits, which may help in Real Estate Ventures and the said Venkateshwar Rao has introduced his wife by name Sandhya Rani, and the couple have made him to believe to invest in monthly chits to expand his business more, for which her husband is guaranteed for the chit transactions of husband of the defacto complainant, as Venkateshwar Rao was working in Corporation Bank, as such the husband of the defacto complainant was trapped by sugar coated words to invest in chits of Rs.5,00,000/- chits X 6=30,00,000/- i.e., Rs.20,000/- X 6= Rs.1,20,000/- per month and Rs.3,00,000/- chits X 6 = Rs.18,00,000/- i.e., Rs.12,000/- X 6=Rs.72,000/- per month, totally Rs.48,00,000/- and the chit tenure was of 25 months and totally monthly subscription of 12 chits were given in the form of a cheque in the account of accused No.1. Later, the husband of defacto complainant was bedridden, out of the 12 chits only one chit of Rs.5,00,000/- drawn, for that an amount of Rs.4,76,250/was paid to the husband of defacto complainant on 27.05.2014. Later, when the entire chits monthly subscription was paid and after deduction of chit commission, the accused No.1 informed to the husband of defacto complainant that she has to pay an amount of Rs.43,23,750/- after deducting the commission for other chits, and even though the defacto complainant demanded to pay, the accused No.1 was delaying since August, 2014 on one pretext or the other. Meantime, the husband of defacto complainant died on 21.07.2015. Thereafter she met the said Sandhra Rani for the amounts, which were demanding from September, accused No.1 abused her and her children for the demands with a threat to eliminate them even they roped and
3
Dr.SSRB,J Crlp_6994_2017
cheated the public and the defacto complainant came to know that accused No.1 purchased properties in the name of accused No.2 and herself and they are in abscondance, thereby to take action.
4
Dr.SSRB,J Crlp_6994_2017
any, in support of her version, she did not turn up with any information to investigate the case. As seen from the bank statements only 33 lakhs has been returned to the defacto complainant’s husband account by accused, though defacto complainant in her complaint says as if accused returned only Rs.4,76,250/- and, in fact, the defacto complainant’s husband Veera Reddy withdrawn vide his cheque bearing No.03581 a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- only. As can be seen from the bank statement of him dated 28.09.2013, what the defacto complainant says that the amount transferred to accused account is not correct therefrom.
5
Dr.SSRB,J Crlp_6994_2017
same no way attracts and it speaks about the powers of Magistrate to give extension of time for filing documents etc., thereby the said offence is also liable to be quashed. Mentioning of the said penal provision is unsustainable and continuation of the proceedings for the said offence is nothing but abuse of process of law is liable to be quashed.
6
Dr.SSRB,J Crlp_6994_2017
Petition shall stand closed.
_________________________ Dr. B. SIVA SANKARA RAO, J
Dt.14.11.2017 knl
2 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings under Section 75 of the Telangana Chit Fund Act are maintainable when no offence is made out and evidence is lacking.
Whether a cognizance order based on a final report lacking supporting evidence is sustainable.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
V. Sandhya Rani
Pesari Vanaja Reddy (on behalf of State)
B. Siva Sankara Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
