APHC010144112019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 515/2019 Between: GREENTREES APARTMENT WELFARE ASOOCIATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT P.SARADA, W/O.LATE P.CHANDRASEKHAR, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O.FLAT NO.T1/1, GREEN TREES APARTMENT, GOWTHAM NAGAR VEPAGUNTA, NAIDUTHOTA, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...PETITIONER AND 1. A YESU BABU, S/O.NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, R/O.FLAT NO.T1/1, GREEN TREES APARTMENT, GOWTHAM NAGAR VEPAGUNTA, NAIDUTHOTA, VISAKHAPATNAM. 2. B SWAROOPA RANI, W/O.AUGUSTEEN, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCC.HOUSEWIFE, R/O.FLAT NO.T1 /4, GREEN TREES APARTMENT, GOWTHAM NAGAR VEPAGUNTA, NAIDUTHOTA, VISAKHAPATNAM. 3. K KONDAL RAO, S/O.NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC. RETIRED FROM SERVICE, R/O.FLAT NO.T1/1, GREEN TREES APARTMENT, GOWTHAM NAGAR VEPAGUNTA, NAIDUTHOTA, VISAKHAPATNAM. 4. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATHI ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. N R BHAGAVAN 2. BANDA SAI SAMPATH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2. SHAIK MOHAMMED ISMAIL 3. LEGAL AID 2 The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: The instant Criminal Revision Case under Sections 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C has been filed by the Revision Petitioner / Complainant seeking to set aside the Order dated 04.02.2019 passed in D.D.R.No.4178 of 2018 (5020 of 2018) on the file of the Court of VII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. 2. Heard Sri B.Sai Sampath Kumar, Legal Aid Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri Sk. Mohammed Ismail, Legal Aid Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. 3. Learned Legal Aid Counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the impugned order dismissing the private complaint is illegal and is without application of judicial mind. It is further submitted that the petitioner, as President of Green Trees Apartment Association, filed a complaint under Sections 190 and 200 Cr.P.C. alleging offences under Sections 420, 409, 477- A and 120-B read with Section 34 IPC. The Respondents, being the former executive body, had a fiduciary duty to render accounts but deliberately evaded the same despite a compromise award dated 23.02.2018, repeated demands and notice dated 22.05.2018. It is submitted that the Respondents collected amounts from the builder and flat owners without issuing receipts and without rendering accounts, clearly disclosing misappropriation. The complaint and sworn statement disclose a prima facie case. However, the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint mechanically which is 3 impermissible at the stage of cognizance. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 4. Per contra, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the Respondents submits that the impugned order is legal and warrants no interference. It is further submitted that the dispute is purely civil in nature relating to alleged non- rendering of accounts of an apartment association. Even if the allegations are accepted in entirety, the essential ingredients of offences under Sections 420, 409, 477-A or 120-B IPC are not made out, as there is no entrustment or dishonest intention. It is submitted that the Respondents had already ceased to be members of the executive body and cannot be fastened with criminal liability. At best, the Petitioner has a civil remedy for rendition of accounts. Learned Legal Aid Counsel finally submits that the learned Magistrate rightly exercised discretion and dismissed the complaint for want of prima facie material. The petition, therefore, deserves dismissal. 5. This Court has considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. is limited and can be exercised only when the impugned order suffers from illegality, perversity or material irregularity. 6. The complaint pertains to alleged failure of the Respondents, former office bearers of an Apartment Association, to render accounts of amounts alleged to have been collected from the builder and flat owners. A perusal of the complaint and sworn statement does not disclose specific averments regarding entrustment, dishonest intention at inception, falsification of 4 accounts or conspiracy. The allegations are general and lack particulars as to amounts, dates and individual roles. Mere non-rendering of accounts or alleged breach of fiduciary duty, in the absence of the essential ingredients of the offences alleged, gives rise at best to a civil dispute. Further, it is evident that the dispute between the parties was compromised in P.L.C. No.97 of 2017 before the Lok Adalat, Visakhapatnam on 23.02.2018, and the present complaint has been filed subsequent thereto. The learned trial Judge considered the material and exercised discretion judiciously in dismissing the complaint. This Court finds no illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order. 7. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed, confirming the order dated 04.02.2019 passed in D.D.R.No.4178 of 2018 (5020 of 2018) by the Court of VII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:20.01.2026 Dinesh 5 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.R.C.No.515 of 2019 Dt.20.01.2026 Dinesh