Dismissed

Ganta Anuradha and Another v. the State of Telangana.,Rep.,Pp and Another

Telangana HC13 Oct 2022CRLP/12061/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking quashment of chargesheet in a cheating case involving alleged misuse of money for securing medical admission. Court held prima facie case exists and dismissed petition to quash, directing trial court to proceed on merits.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition dismissed; trial court directed to proceed with the case on merits in CC No. 869/2018.

Ganta Anuradha and Another Vs the State of… — Cheating and Forgery | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY. THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D. NAGARJUN

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 12061 OF 2016

¶6

Betwee n:

¶7

Ganta Anuradha, W/o. Satish Kumar, Aged about 58 years, Occ. Professor of Agricultural University, R/o. Flat No. 101, H.No. 7-1-29lD, Leela Nagar, Begumpet, Hyderabad.

¶8

Paturi Satish Kumar, S/o. Radhakrishna l,4urthy, Aged about 55 years, Occ: Chartered Accountant, Rl/o. FIat No. 101, H.No. 7-1-29lD, Leela Nagar, Begumpet, Hyderabad.

¶9

...Petitioner/Accused't &2

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Telangana., Rep., Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad.

¶12

...Respondent

¶13

Karri Padmaja, W/o. Mahidhar, Rl/o. PIot No.'165, Road No. 9, H.No.5-3319/A, Venkat Rao Nagar Colony, Kukatpally, Hyd-72.

¶14

...RespondenUComplainants

¶15

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the [,4emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the CC. No. 869/2018, Dt.2910}2018 on the file of lX lt/etropolitan Magistrate Kukatpally, in so far as the petitioners herein are concerned in the interest of .iustice and to pass.

¶16

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(QB-LPMP. NO: 13405 OF 2016)

¶17

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the lVemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in CC. No. 869/2018 dt:29-3-2018 lX N,4etropolitan [,4agistrate, Kukatpally, Cyberabad, pending disposal of the main Criminal Petition.

¶18

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing lhe l',4emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri UNNAI\4 lt/URALIDHAR RAO. Advocate for the Petitioners and the Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri R.K. CHITTA, Advocate for the Respondent No.2

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE^D.NAGARJUN

¶21

CRIMINAL PETIT^{ION No.12O6l of 2016}

¶22

ORDER

¶23

This Criminal Petition is^{filed under Scctiotr 482 of the} Code of Criminal Procedure^{by the petitioners-accu scd Nos i} ancl 2 to quash C.C.No.869^{of 2018 on the file of learneci IX} Mctropolitan Magistratc,^{CyberabadatKukatpally,the} cognizance of which^{wastaken for the oflence under Sections} 406, 417, 42O, l2o'ts read^{with Section34 of thc Indian Pcnal} Code. Originally the^{petitioners have tiled this criminal petition} seeking^{quashmentof FIR No.278of 2016 of KukatpallyPolice} Station. However, during^{the pendencyof the criminal petition,} the Police have completed^{investigationand filed chargesheet} alleging that the^{petitionershave committedthe offence under} Sections 406,⁴¹⁷ ,^{42O,l2O-B read with Section 34 of the} Indian Penal Code. Subsequently,^{the criminal petitionwas} amended seeking^{quashment of charge sheet instead of FIR'} The petitioners have not^{filed orders of the trial court taking} cognizance of the offence.^{Thereby this Court is handicappedas} to under what penal provisions,^{cognizalcewas taken against} the petitioners. Hence, assuming^{that cognizance was taken}

¶24

i1q:ti.st Lhi, 1;r,liti..r.r-s lrrrrl other accusecl. the,r.clr:r-s:ire ltcing p:rs secl

¶25

The lacts in brief as can be seen from rccord available before the Court arc zrs under:

¶26

a) On 0i.O6.2016 at 12.00 pM the de_facro complainant lodged a complaint belore Kukatpally police Station alleging that her has complcted MBBS and was intending to get hcr admitted in Post Graduatc Coursc at SRMC College, porur, Chennai. The de-facto complainant was having acquaintance with G.Anuradha (petitioner No. l-accused No. 1), who is professor in Acharya N.G.Ranga AG Universitlz, Rajendrar-ragar and her husband Paturi Satish Kumar (petitioner No.2-accused No.2), who is an cx-employee in HBL Company. Both the petitioners have informcd the dc-facto complainant that yelamanchili Srihari (accused No.3, who is the cousin of accused No. 1) earlier arranged a medical PG seat at porur, Chennai by taking commission and that the petitioners can arrange for the seat to the daughter of the de-facto complainant. Both the petitioners and accused No.3 havc convinced the d.e-facto complainant that they will arrange the seat for Rs. 1.6 crores.

¶27

b) The petitioner Nos. I and 2 went to^{the house of de} fctcto complainant and on demand,^{the de} facto^{complainanthas} arranged Rs-75 lakhs^{on 25.O9.2012and obtained rcceipt.The} pelitioners have further informed^{tine de-factocomplainantthat} in the last week of December,^{2Ol2 balance money has to be} paid within three months and in^{the last week of Decembcr,} 2OL2 the seat will be^{finalized atChennai. Thede-fctcto} complainant has also^{arranged balancemoney. The first} petitioner has informed the de-facto^{compiainantthat she} cannot travel to Chennai^{as she was havingwork as she is a} Prolessor and thereby her^{husbandi.e., petitioner No 2 and} accused No.3 have collected^{Rs. 10 lakhs from the de-facto} complainant and^gave receipt and^{all of them went to SRM} College campus, Chennai,^{whereintL'e de-facto complainant} was asked to wait at the^{parking place and lhey were madeto} sit in the parking^{place throughoutthe day.Later inthe} evening, tlre de-facto complainant^{was askedto take a room at} the hote 1.

¶28

c) The petitioners have introduced^{one K.V.Subba Rao} (accused No.4) and subsequently^{accusedNo.4 informed de-} facto^{cornplainantthat they are due Rs.50 lakhs moreOn} enquiry, petitioner No.1^{informedtlrc de-factocomplainantthat}

¶29

¶30

cut Rs.75 lakhs paid initialry, she has utirizcd Rs.50 lakhs for hcr pcrsonal rrsc ancl convincecl thal they r.irill arrange Rs.50 lakhs latcr. On which thc rle-facto complainant has arranged Rs.50 iakhs. Thc rle_facto complainant has also paicl Rs, i0 lakhs to one Vijav Kumar as commission. overal, the de_facto complainant hus translerred an amount of Rs.2.20 crores for securing the seat of her daughter. Subsequently the seat was not given and on enquiry, the college management of SRM College , Chennai has informed that the de-facto complainant was cheated and wha tever names being told by tlre d_e-facto complainant, as representatives of college are fake names.

¶31

d) The petitioners have given their papers pertaining to plot No.742 situated at Matrusri Nagar as security and when the de_ facto^complainant demanded to get the plot registered in the name of de-facto complainanr, the petitioners have stated that the plot has to be regularized, for which the d.e_facto complainant spent Rs. 12 lakhs and after regularization 1 of the plot, the de-facto complainant spent Rs.3 lakhs for construction of compound r,i,all around the plot and later the petitioners have refused to transfcr the said plot in favour of the d.e_facto complainant. Subsequently, an attempt was made to resolve the issue but ultimat.ely the petitioners and other accused have

¶32

relLlsed to^{pay the mone\I.Aggrievedby the same,a complaint} has been filcd on^{30.05.20 16 be fore the Police, Kukatpally'} Bascd on the^{said complaint'a casein Crime No'278of 2016} was registered. After^{completion of investigation, the Police} have filed charge^{shcet, the cognizance of rvhich was taken for} the offence under^{Section s 406, 417} ,^{42O' l2O-B read with} Section 34 of the^{[ndian Penal Code' Aggrieved by the same' the} prescnt criminal^{petition to quash C.C'No'869of 2OlB on the} tlle of learned^{IXMetropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at} Kukatpally against^{them on the following grounds:}

¶33

i) No oflence is^{made out, even if the contents of complaint'} charge sheet are^{accepteclas the disputetretweenthe parties is} purely civil in nature.^{Criminal case is filed to recover the said} amount allegedly^{given by tlre de-facto complainant'}

¶34

ii) there are no^{essential ingredientdfor the offenceunder} Sections 406, 417^{and42O ofthetndianPenal Code are there as} reported in Hridaya^{Ranjan Prasadv' State of Bihar reported in} (2OO4l 4 SCC Page 168^{and in G'SagarSuri v' State of U'P'} reported in 20OO^{(1) SCRPage 417.}

¶35

Heard Sri Unnam^{Muralidha-rRao, learned counsel for the} petitioners, Sri R.K.Chitta,^{learned counsel for the respondent}

¶36

¶37

No.2 lutci Sn S.Citrrcsh. learnecl counsel for the respondent Nos. I :rrtr1 J :rnri ltcrrist:cl Ilrc rccorc].

¶38

4 Nou, thc pojnt for determination is:

¶39

"Whethcr the proceedings against the petitioncrs-:tccused Nos. I amt 2 in C.C.No.g69 of 2018 on thc file of lcarned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Kukatpally, can be quashed under Section 4g2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?

¶40

The contents of complaint and statements of witnesses t.e., LWs I to 3 wor-rld go to show that the petitioners along with other accuscd havc taken Rs.2.2 crores in al1 from the de_facto complainant under the guise that they would get pG Medical seat to the daughter of the d.e_facto complainant in SRM College, Porur, Chennai. However, the petitioners and other accused havc failed to secure the seat to the daughter of the de_ facto^complainant and failed to repay the money and thereby the Police have filed charge sheet against the petrtioners along with other accused for the offence under Section s 4O6, 417, 12O-B read with Section 34 of the Indian penal Code.

¶41

The petitioners on the other hand have submitted that even il the contentions of the d.e-facto complainant are correct,

¶42

t,rrc d.e-facto complainant^{is cntitled for money, for whichshe} has to institute a civil^{suit but nol criminerl case.}

¶43

According to thc prosecution,^{theaccused have} committed oflence^{of cheating punishableunder Sections 4 17} anrl, 42o of the lndian Penal codc. [n^{VijayKumar Ghai} and others vs. The State^{of WestBengal and otherslthe} Hon'ble Supreme Court^{held at paragraphs 3 1 to 36 as} under:

¶44

"31- Section 415 tPC dcfines "cheating"^{rvhich reads as} under;

¶45

"4L5. cheo,tlng.-Whoever,^{by deceivinganyperson'} fraudutently or dishonestly^{inducesthepersonsodeceived} to deliver any propert)'to^{any person,or to consentthat any} person shall retain any^{property, or intentionally induces} ih. p"."on so deceived to^{do or omit to do anything which} he rvould not do or omit^{if he were not so deceived,and} which act or omission^{causes or is tikely to causedamage} or harm to that^{person inbody, mind, reputationor} propert-y, is said to "cheat"."

¶46

The essential ingredients^{of the offence oI cheatingare:}

¶47

l. Deception of anY Person

¶48

(a) Fraudulently or^{dishonestly inducingthat} person-

¶49

(r) to deliver any property^{to anyperson:or}

¶50

(iI.) to consent that any^{person shall retain any} proPerty; or

¶51

(tr) intentionally inducing that^{person to do or omitto do} anything which^{he wouldnot do or omitif he wereno so}

¶52

' 1:02:1^{I SC'c t:.1}

¶53

f._t

¶54

¶55

.l('( ( l(,.1. ,ilt(l \lti( lr ;rr.l ot ontisstrrrL r.itust,,j ()r ls likel\ ''. L, rrrll,r- .,t ll , lt. I ,ll..,t 1,., ,.t rr lr. I ttt,l, r-rl) L rlir lioIl or l)r()l)( 1t\

¶56

A lraudulcnt or clishonest in(lucemcr.lt is an essential ingredient of the offence. A person $ho disltoncstlv induces another person to deli\ er ar rv propertv rs liable for thc offence ot cheating.

¶57

Section 420 lpC clelines^.ch(.ating and dishonestly inducing delivery of propertr,.', rvhich reads a; uncler:

¶58

"42O. Cheating and d.ishonestlg inducing d.elivery of propertg.-Wllocver cheats ancl thcreb.v dishoncstly induces the person deceivccl_ to dclivcr an., p.o;r.rt. 1o .,.,y person, or to makc, altcr or destror. Lhe \ hole oi ani part of a valuable sccurit,y, orurn_.thing rvltich is signed oi sealed, and which is capable of being converte.i iit to a ualuaUte security, shall be punished u.ith imprisonmer.rt oI either description for a term,,r,hich mal.cxtcncl ro seven.,cars, and shall also be liable to fine."

¶59

Section 42O IpC is a serious lorm of cheating that includes inducement (to lead or move someone to happin) in terms of delivery of property as (.ell as valuablc "ecr.iti.s. fni" section is also applicable to mattcrs rvhere the dcstruction of the property is caused by the rvay of cheating ". i"a"."_.n,. Punishment for cheating is provided undcr th"is section-wfrictr may extend to 7 years and also makes the person liable to fine.

¶60

To establish the offence of cheating in inducing the delivery of property, the following ingredients need io U. f.?".A,

¶61

(') The representation madt: by the person rvas fal se.

¶62

(n) The accused had prior knowtedge that the representation he made rvas false.

¶63

(tr) The accused made false representation with dishonest intention in order to dcccive the person to whorn it was made.

¶64

(iul The act lvhere the accuscd indur:ed thc pcrson to deliver the property or to perform or to abstain Irom an) acl \vhich thc pcrsot) rr.oulrl ltavc not done or had otherwise committe(i.

¶65

As observed and held by this Court in R.K Vi.j ag a s ctr athg v. Sudh a Seetharam IR. K

¶66

¶67

Vtlugctsarat hg ' .Sir.//ra .Sc.l,,r.o.orr. (2O I 9) I 6 SCC 739 : {2020) :^{S9C (9,-,1 +5 il . ri)e ir1gr..li(.rrrst() (1)rlslrtLrrean oflencc} under Section^.12O are as lollo\r s:

¶68

{r)^{a pt_'rson} rlLlsL^(.on)llti1 llt(,ollcncc of cheating under Sect ior r^-:l l5: :rnci

¶69

(ir) the person cheatc(i rnust be dishonestly in<iuced to:

¶70

(a) deiiver propcrt-v to any person; or

¶71

(b) rnakc, alter or destro_, valuable security or anything signed. or -^{sealedandcapable ofbeing} converted into _valuablc security. Thus, cheating is ai, essential ingredient for an act to constitute an offence under Section^q2O lpc."

¶72

On considering the above provision, in order to prove the olfence of cheating, as defined under section 415 of the Indian Penal Code, prosecution has to place material belbre the Court that the petitioners with fraudulent intention induced the de-facto complainant to deliver the money, otherwise the de-facto complainant would not have paid the money to the accused. In order to prove the offence under Section 42O of fne Indian Penal Code, the prosecution is expected to place material that the petitioners by way of cheating dishonestly induced the de-facto complainant to pay money and on account of such inducement, the de facto complainant has paid money and thereby lost entire Rs.2.2 crores.

¶73

In the case on hand, as seen from the sequence of events right from day one onwards, the petitioners approached tlre d,e_

¶74

¶75

facto^complztinant and taking advantage of requrrement of getting P(i rnedical seat in SRM C.llege, Chennai to the daughter of the de-facfo complainant, induccd her initially. to pay Rs. 1.5 crores and later Rs.50 lakhs and other monies totaling to Rs.2.2 crores and ultimatel_v collected Rs.2.2 crores under various installments and keep on promising that they would secure a seat to the daughter of thc d.e_facto complainant. If really, the petitioners have got any connection with SRM College, Chennai, it is expected that they should pay atleast part of Rs.2.2 crores to the college or somebody connected with the college. Enquiries of de-facto complainant ultimately revealed that the petitioners and other accused have not paid any amount to the college for reserving the seat to the daughter of tbe de-facto complainant.

¶76

The events that are unfolded also reveal that petitioners have taken de-facto complainant and her husband to SRM College, Chennai and made them to sit in the parking place and Iate in the night they have advised them to take a room in hoter and thereafter introduced to one K.V.Subba Rao, s,ho again told them that the de-facto complainant they are due Rs.SO lakhs. When the de-facto complainant enquired with petitioner No. 1 about the due ol Rs.SO lakhs, the petitioner No. 1 stated to have

¶77

¶78

informed lhat out of Rs.75 lakhs advance, she has utilized Rs.50 lakhs for her personal use. So, this act of pctitioner, accused No.1 also goes to shou, that money, which they borrowed from de-facto complainant for securing a seat to the daughter of the de facto complainant utilized for their personal necessities.

¶79

It is not the case of the petitioners that though they paid money, they were deceived b1, the collcge or seat cannot be secured for other reasons. The conduct of the petitioners at every stage clearly goes to show that from the day one onwards, they approached the de facto complainant and they were having a malicious intention to deceive the d_e-facto complainant and extorted money whatever they can and later introduced many people as if seat is being arrangcd and ultimately whatever promises made by the petitioners and other accused proved to be false. The petitioners have not even registered at SRM College for reserving seat to the daughter of tine d.e_foicto complainant.

¶80

Ail these things would go to show that there is clear prima-facie case against the petitioners and all the ingredients of Sections 417 and 42O of tpC are available and thev can be

¶81

)

¶82

¶83

iiJ)l)lic(l to li.te f:lcts ol lhc case. Thcrclort,, Litr: sL_rltrnjssions of l,,,rr,r,rl (.o ns(.1 Ior tltr.p|titioners lhal Ilrc.r rr l, rro ,nqrcdi(.nls to it{)l(l that the pctitioners havc not cornrrti ccl :rn}, offct1ce, c-:i n nol l)cr ilccepted.

¶84

Section 12O-A of the Indian penai Cocle defines r:rirninal conspiracy and whereas Section l2O_B of the Inclian penal Code is a penal provision for criminal conspiracy. It is the case of the de-facto complainant that all the accused have conspired crrminally to cheat the d.e-facto comprainant and extorted Rs.2.2 crorcs. On perusal of the statements of witnesses including the statement of de_facto complainant and contents of complaint, it is clear that at every stage, the petitioners and other accused colludcd with each other and gave false statements and in pursuance of their conspiracy they went on collecting money while continuing to give hope and promise that they u,outd secure a seat to the daughter of the d.e-facto complainant and in lact without there being any efforts made by SRM College, Chennai, entire money of Rs.2.2 crores has been swallowed by the petrtioners and other accused and subst:quently failcd to respond and failed to pay not even a single pie It is also alleged that though the petitioners have collected Rs.12 lakhs fro regularizing the plot, the papers of u,hich are kept q.ith thc de_

¶85

l_l

¶86

facto^{complainant as securily and uitimatclyrefusedto transler} the said property in the name of rine^{de-factocomplainantfor} making good of the loss sustained^{b1- tlnc de-facto complainant} on account of the acts committed^{by the pctitioners.Therefore,} this aspect would certainly attract^{not only to the petitioncrs} but also to other accused to conspire^{together and in pursuance} of their conspiracy extorted money tc a tune^{of Rs.2.2 crores.}

¶87

Considering the above discussions, it is clear that^the offence under Section 406 of IPC also arising^{out of the alleged} commission of olfence of the petitioners and other^accused under Sections 417, 42O and 120-8 of the^{Indian PenalCode.} Therefore, the offence under Section 406 of the^IndianPenal Code cannot be seen in isolation.

¶88

In order to quash the proceeding against the^petitioncrs, they have to establish that even i1 the conten[s^{of chargesheet} are taken into consideration, no case ls^{made out against them'} As seen from the charge sheet, the investigating^{agency has} examined 5 witnesses including two^{official witnessesbefore} fi1ing charge sheet and the statements^{of witnesses revealthat} there is prima-facie material against the^{petitionersaccused.} There are many factual issues^involved in this^{case, which}

¶89

)

¶90

1.1

¶91

c.tnnot be dealt rvithout a full_fledged trial, more particulariy itr a pctition filed under Section 4g2 of the Code of Criminal Proccrlure

¶92

The Ilon,ble Supreme Court in a celebrated judgmcnt decided betq.ecn State of Haryana and others vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others2, has formulated certain guidelines under rvhich Court can consider quashment of criminal case. The guidelines itr{l

¶93

,^{(1where theallegationsmade in} the First Information Report or the compiaint, even if ihey .-',f,"i.o.e taken at their face yalue and accepteJ i., errtircty do not pima_,fizcie constitute any offe.,c. o. make out a case against the accused;

¶94

(b) where the allegations in the First Information tf r" Report and other materials, if any, "."ornpu,lyirg F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizaile offence, :""-ti'fyi"g an- inves-tigation by police officers under' i..tiorl 156(1) ol the Code except under an order of a Code;Magistrate within the purvi;w of Section f SSlZj "f tf.,.

¶95

(c) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the ."ia"-"".- .off."iJa in support of the same do not disciose the commission accused; of any offence and make out a case "g"i""i ,f-r.

¶96

(d) .^{whe re the ailegations inthe} FIR do not consti[ute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is pe.mitt"d - by a police officer without an order of " fvf.g'i"-tr.i. ." contemplated under Section 155(2) of the CEae;

¶97

I 992 AllL (,0.i

i \

(c) r,vhere lhc allegations macle in thc I.'[ R or complaint are so absurd and inhere ntly improbablc on thc basis cf rvhich no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion thal there is sulficient ground for proceeding against the accused;

¶103

(0 u'here there is an exprcss lcgal bar engraftcd in any ol the provisions of thc Codc or thc cor-rccrncd Act (under u,hich a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the instilution and continuance ol the proceedings and/or rvhere there is a specific provisiorr in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress lor the grievance of the aggrieved party;

¶104

(g) rvhere a criminal proceeding is manilestly attended with mala fide andf or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive lor wreaking vengeance on the accuscd and u.ith a view to spite him due to private and personal gruclge."

¶105

On perusal of the contents of the complaint and statements of the witnesses and rest of the investigation done by the Police, there is pima-facie material that, in a[1, the petitioners and other accused have taken Rs.2.2 crores trorn defacto^{complainant. In respectof paying money paid by tine de-} facto^{complainant, there are receipts and bank transactionsand} copies of whatsapp chats. On going through all the documents, it is crystal ciear that the de-facto complainant has paid Rs.2.2 crores with a fond hope that the accused will help the daughter of tlne de-faclo complainant to get a seat in SRM College,

Cheln.ri.^-lh(trclorc. on r:onsiclr:ring thc facLs, there is a clear prima iacie cilsc :re:tlnst tite itetitioners.

¶110

Thus, ir-r vieu,of the principle laid down in the above said authority, vier.ving from any angle, the petitioners lailed to establish anv oI thc grounds to quash proceeclings against them in C.C.No.B69 of 20 la on the file of learned IX Metropolitan Magistratc, Cyberabad at Kukatpally and thereby the criminal petition rs liable to bc dismissed.

¶111

19 Accordingly, the Criminal petition is dismissed. The trial Court is directed to proceed rvith the case against the petltloncrs in C.C.No.g69 of 201g on the file of learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Kukatpally on merits, uninfluenced by the observations and comments made bv this court in this ordcr.

¶112

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, pending if any,

¶113

shall stand closed

¶114

To,

¶115

Sd/. K. SHYLEdHI DEPUTY REG/SrRAR //rRUE CoPY// SECTIONYOFFICER

¶116