IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION No.2846 of 2022 Between: 1. Rangala Madhu Mohan Raju, S/o. Nooka Raju, Aged 46 years, Occ: Business, R/o.Flat No.C-2, III Floor, Sri Siri Residency, Santhi Nagar, Kakinada, East GodavariDistrict. 2. Smt. Rangala Sharmila, W/o. Rangala Madhu Mohan Raju, Aged 40 years, Occ: Business, R/o.Flat No.C-2, III Floor, Sri Siri Residency, Santhi Nagar, Kakinada, East Godavari District. ...Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 & 2 AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. ...Respondent years, Occ: Business, R/o. D.No.1-1A-22/2, Mahatma Street, Kondayyapalem, Kakinada, East Godavari District. 2. Gokivada Balakrishna, S/o. Venkata Ramana, Aged 34 ...Respondent/Complainant 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 call for the records pertaining to C.C.No. 1215 of 2021 the, file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kakinada for the on offences punishable Under Sections 406, 420, 506 r/w. 34 of IPC and quash ,|he charge sheet registered against the petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 and 2. I.A. NO: 1 OF 2022 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 stay all further proceedings including the appearance of the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.1215 of 2021 on the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kakinada, East Godavari District. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Chetiuru Sreenivas, Advocate for the Petitioners and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri N.Siva Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2. The Court made the following: 1 4 APHC010176102022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2846/2022 Between; Rangala Madhu Mohan Raju and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1.CHETLURU SREENIVAS Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1.N SIVA REDDY 2.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following; 2 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2846/2022 ORDER: The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, Cr.P.C.”) has been filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 and 2, seeking quashment of the proceedings pending against them in C.C.No.1215 of 2021 on the file of II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada. 2. Heard Sri Chetiuri Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri N.Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and Ms. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that no allegations in specific are made against the petitioners/AI and A2 to attract the offence alleged i.e., 406, 420 or 506 of IPC. It is alleged against the petitioners that complainant paid Rs.90,00,000/- (Rupees Ninety Lakhs Only) as the accused offered partnership in their business. Thereafter, on enquiry, they could understand that the Accused deviated from their promise. It is further alleged that when the complainant questioned the Accused for their mischievous acts, they have threatened him with dire consequences and criminally intimidated him. Learned counsel would further submit that the petitioners received the amount through Bank which is not for the sake of partnership in business. The petitioners received only Rs.16,00,000/-, the amount which they have borrowed from the respondent No.2. Learned counsel would further submit 3. 3 that the complainant and four others went to the house of the accused at Hyderabad in their absence and threatened their parents. A case has been registered against the respondent No.2 and others as C.C.No.808 of 2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 506, 341 of IPC. Under these circumstances, the question of attracting the offence under Sections 406, 420 of 506 of IPC does not arise. The matter is of civil in nature. Nothing is alleged against the petitioners that they have induced the respondent No.2 to invest that amount in the business of the petitioners. Learned counsel would further submit that continuing criminal proceedings against the petitioners is mere abuse of process of law. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 would submit that the contentions raised in the present petition is a matter of defence which can be appreciated by the Trial Court. Learned counsel would further submit that with malafide intention, the petitioners induced the respondent No.2 to part away with the money. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor supported the version of the respondent No.2. 6. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the complaint would show that Thug is found and repairs were done and it is not the case of cheating or criminal misappropriations because, a case has been registered against the respondent No.2. As a counterblast, this false case has been lodged against the petitioners. 4 For better understanding and clarity, the contents of the complaint in brief are here under: It is stated that the petitioners/A1 and A2 approached the complainant and his friend and induced them to invest their amounts in their shipping and take business as partners and assured to give 25% share each for the profits from time to time. It is further stated that A1 and A2 by making such false promises grabbed the amount in total Rs.90,00,000/- through account transfers, cash and also gold worth Rs.2,00,000/- till September, 2018. It is stated that accused thereby cheated the complainant and his friend and grabbed their amounts thereby committed an offence of criminal breach of trust and cheating. It is further stated that on 28.01.2019 at about 5:00 PM when the complainant approached the accused at the house of Al’s father. They have threatened him with dire consequences and criminally intimidated him and proceeded to attack the complainant and his friend (LW-2) with iron rod. Due to high handed attitude and attack of the accused, the complainant suffered shock, insult and lot of mental and physical suffering. It is further the case of the complainant when enquired about the accused, he came to know the accused are habitual cheaters. The grounds on which the present petition is filed seeking quashment 8. are hereunder; i) Learned Magistrate without verifying the truth or otherwise of contents of complaint, simply forwarded the same to the Police in a routine way. f 5 ii) It is stated that A1 sought for financial assistance from the complainant and his friend LW-2 for expanding their business. Accordingly, they have transferred an amount of Rs.16,51,500/- to the personal account of A1. iii) The petitioners never promised any partnership to the complainant or entered into any agreement with the complainant to that effect. In the absence of written agreement, the allegations cannot be believed. iv) All the payments were made through net transfers only. There is a delay in filing the complaint and the reason is not explained. v) The complainant along with two others criminally trespassed into the house of the parents of A1, wrongfully confined them, threatened them, forcibly taken away the certificates, laptop. Camera. Basing on the report of the father of the petitioner, a case has been registered as Cr.No.243 of 2018 on 14.12.2018. It is now pending as C.C.No.808 of 2019 against the respondent No.2 for the offence punishable under Sections 448, 342, 384, 506 r/w 34 of IPC. There are contradictions in the statement and witnesses before the Police. 9. Considering the submissions made and on a fair look at the contents of the complaint, as rightly put by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2, the contentions raised in the present petition are touching the disputed questions on facts. This court while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code cannot conduct a mini trial. It is the contention of the complainant that accused induced him with malafide intention and made him to pay Rs.90,00,000/- (Rupees Ninety Lakhs only) by offering partnership in 6 his business. On contra, the petitioners contend that they have taken only Rs.16,00,000/-(Rupees Sixteen Lakhs only) as the amount borrowed from the respondent No.2. As prima facie, verifiable material is present, which requires investigation at the full length of Trial, this Court cannot quash the case against the petitioners. 10. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/-B PRASADA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// IT SECTION OFFICER To 1. The II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Godavari District. 2. The Station House Officer, II Town L & O Police Station Godavari District. 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi[OUT] 4. One CC to Sri Chetiuru Sreenivas, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri N.Siva Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Three CD Copies Kakinada, East Kakinada, East TK sree HIGH COURT DATED:28/01/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.2846 of 2022 I' 15 MAR 2025 I ^ . Current Section DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION