High Court dismissed a criminal petition filed by a petitioner accused in a cheating case. The Court held that strong prima facie case exists against her based on investigation material and refused quashment at this stage.
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.
[32se ]
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
TUESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2883 OF 2018
Between:
Smt. Bittu Sunitha Rani, W/o. Bittu Mohan Kumar
...PETITIONERYACCUSED
AND
..RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANTS
Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.Cpraying thatin the circumstances stated in the [Vlemorandum of Grounds of CriminalPetition,the HighCourt may be pleased to Quash the Proceedings in FIR No.665 of 2017 daled 14-11-2017 on lhe file of the Station House Officer, Police StationChaitanyapuri,Rachakonda Commissionerate, Cyberabad.
l.A. NO: I OF 2018
Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.Cpraying thatin the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of CriminalPetition,the HighCourt maybe pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in FIR No. 665 of 2017 dated14- 11-2017 on the file of Station House Officer, Police Station,Chaitanyapuri, Rachakonda Commissionerate, Cyberabad including arrest ofthe petitioner/accused.
This Petition coming on for hearing, uponperusing the Memorandumof Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments ofSri V.RAVI KIRAN RAO, Advocate for the Petitioner and of theAssistant PublicProsecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and None Appeared for theRespondent No.2.
The Court made the following: ORDER
/
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D. NAGARJUN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2883 OF 2018
ORDER:
This petition is Iiled by the petitioner/Al5 in remand CD dated 06.02.20L8 seeking quashment of Crime No.665 of 2Ol7 dated 14.11.2017 registered against her for the offence under Sections 420, 406, 506 read with 34 IPC.
4 - Duringt he course of investigation, police have apprehended one Ashok/A5 and one Venkatramanal A7.
2
As per the confessional statement of A5, Al used to request him for collection of amounts from various persons for which Al used to give salary and commission on the amounts collected and Al has failed to give the returns to various persons and ultimately locked the door and went away. In the said list, so far as the petitioner is concerned, the said A5 has confessed that the petitioner has paid Rs.25 lakhs to Al for which the petitioner has collected Rs. 1 crore in all, including interest. He has also given the details of many persons and corlected huge amounts. Similarly, other accused who have given confession statement is A7. He also similar to that of AS, give the details and also said that A.1 used Ashok/A5 in order to collect money from various persons.
6 Heard both sides and perused the record.
7 . It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner/Al5 that the petitioner/Al5 is a victim in the hands of A1 as the petitioner/Al5 has given Rs.S lakhs to
J
A 1 for which A t has executed pro-note and that the husband of the petitioner is working as SI of Police and in order to get some official favours in this case the petitioner is also falsely implicated by the de-facto complainant. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner/Al5 that since the offence alleged against the petitioner is only on the basis of the confessiona-l ol one of the accused, the same is not admissible, therefore, cannot be accepted.
i0. This case is under investigation. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner/Al5 there is no mention of petitioner's name in the complaint. The whole grievance of the de-facto complainant 1S against the accused/Al, who stated to have been worked as Police
4
Officer and number of cases are pending against him under various offences. If the contention of the petitioner/A 15 rs accepted, the petitioner would be a victim, as she has also advanced Rs.5 lakhs and nothing was allegedly paid to her. However, the confessional statement of A5 clearly go to show that the petitioner/Al5 has handed over Rs.25 lakhs to A1 for which she has taken returns from A1 to a tune of Rs. 1 crore. That means Rs.75 Iakhs was paid more than what she has advanced. Unless and until the petitioner/A15 is a part of the deal, why should the petitioner accept Rs. 1 crore, when she has paid only Rs.25 lalchs. The questions whether .tr" i" .""tty pu.t of the conspiracy along with other accused, whether she is ayictim in the hands of other persons will be decided only during the course of investigation..
I 1. The crime registered against accused No.l and other accused is at the stage of investigation. May be once the inves*igation is completed, the police may likely to get some other material against the accused. police may also file a final report in respect of same accused, including the petitioner/AlS herein, concluding that the petitioner/A15
)
is a victim and not the accused. Therefore, at this stage of investigation, this Court cannot hold that the petitioner/A 1 5 is not an accused, but is a victim. The contention that the confession of A5 has no evidentiary value would be a relevant point at tlle time of trial in case if the charge sheet is filed against the petitioner/A15.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shalt stand closed.
\
//TRUE COPY//
SD/. G. SIREESHA ASSISTANT R ISTRAR C
SECTION OFFICER
To
HIGH COURT
DATED:2010912022
'{eL4
'.)'
-.i
A\ v
tr
^:"
a
Lul
.lL'\ (-r
<br>
ORDER
CRLP.No.2883 of 2018
DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION WITHOUT COSTS.
rO <br>
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the criminal petition seeking quashment of proceedings in a cheating case registered against the petitioner can be allowed at the investigation stage.
Whether the petitioner can be declared a victim based on the available confessional statement of another accused.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Bittu Sunitha Rani
The State of Telangana
Keetha Venkateshwarlu
DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
