Smt.v.Srilatha Vs The State of Telangana

2 Qhlirgq^{Transport Finance Company Ltd., Kothagudem Branch, Rep. by its} G.P-A. Holder B. Kiran Kumar, age 31 years, Occ. Recovery Executive,'R/o Hanamkonda, Warangal District

¶14

...Respondent

¶15

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P C. praying that in the crrcumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Cr.iminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings of Charge sheet in C.C.No 14512016 on the file of the Hon'ble lll Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kothagudem, Khammam District against the Petitioners/Accused.

¶16

l.A. NO: 1OF 2019

¶17

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings o{ C.C.No 14512016 on the file of the Hon'ble lll Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate. Kothagudem, Khammam District, including the appearance of the Accused till the disposal of the trilain Quash Petition in the interest of the ,ustice.

¶18

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Ch Venkat

¶19

Raman, Advocate for the Petitioners and Sri M Vivekananda Reddy, Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and ol Sri Praveen Kumar Challa, Advocate for the Respondent No.2.

¶20

The Court made the following Order :

¶21

I

¶22

L

¶23

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶24

CRIMINAL PETITION No.227 of 2Ol9

¶25

ORI}ER:

¶26

This Criminal petition is Iiled under Section 482 of Cr.p.C by the petitioners/accused seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No. 145 of 2O16 pending on the frle of III aaait-io.,a-;udicial First Class Magistrate, Kothagudem, Khammam District.

¶27

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners/accused, Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant public prosecutor for respondent No.1 - State and learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶28

3' The brief facts of the case are that the vehicle bearing registration No.Ap-16TW-7514 was purchased by petitioner No. I herein, duly financed by respondent No.2/Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited on 22.O2.2O1 1, while petitioner No.2 stood as guarantor. Thereafter, the petitioners/accused committed default in paying EMIs. Accordingly, the demand notice was sent in the year 2O7l stating that the petitioners/accused paid Rs.21, lg2 / _ as on O5.l0.201 1 and they committed default in paying balalce amount. Though, legal notice was served on the petitioners, they did not produce the

¶29

2

¶30

vehicle or even reply to the lega-l notice. Since the Finance Company was deceived, a private complaint has been filed which was referred to Penamaluru Police Station. After completion of investigation, police hled charge-sheet for the offences under Sections 406, 42O and 427 of I.P.C against the petitioners herein as accused Nos.1 and 2 and one Kadiyala Srinivasa Rao, who is resident of Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh, shown as accused No.3 (absconding).

¶31

The case of the petitioners is that the lorry was spbjected to theft. On the basis of the complaint filed by petitioner No.2 herein/P.Naresh, Penamuluru Police, registered a case against the said Kadiyala Srinivasa Rao (who is arrayed as accused No.3 in present case). After completion of investigation, police filed charge sheet against the said Kadiyala Srinivasa Rao and others. The said charge-sheet was filed in the year 2014. The charge sheet in the present case was frled on 73.04.2016.

¶32

5 The allegation in the present case is that both the petitioners colluded with the said Kadiyala Srinivasa Rao and committed theft of the iorries.

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioners woul d submit that the complainant has not taken any steps to array the petitioners

¶34

3

¶35

7

¶36

herein as accused in C.C.No.338 of 2Ot4 on the Iile of the I Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada City, which was registered against the said Kadiyata srinivasa Rao and two others, on the basis of complaint filed by petitioner No.2 herein.

¶37

\ \

¶38

In the present case, except stating that the petitioners have colluded with the said Kadiyala Srinivasa Ra8,'IiE evidence is placed to show that there was any kind of collusion in between the three accused.

¶39

The grievance of the complainant/Finance co-f,r.ry l" that the petitioners have colluded with Kadiyala Srinivasa Rao and two others to commit theft of 1orry which was financed by the Finance Company. Complainant can take steps before the Court at Vijayawada, where Kadiyala Srinivasa Rao and two others are charge-sheeted, for arraying these petitioners as accused in the said C.C., under Section 31 1 of Cr.p.C.

¶40

I I

¶41

Since the main grievance of the complainant in the present case is that balance EMIs were not paid and there is violation of terms in between the frnancer and borrower, the said allegation is purely civil in nature.

¶42

lO. Accordingly, the Criminal petition is allowed. The proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.l and 2 in

¶43

4

¶44

C.C.No.145 of 2016 on the file of the III Additional Judicial

¶45

Magistrate of the First Class, Kothagudem, Kh:tmmam District,

¶46

are quashed.

¶47

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also