IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 7440 of 2005 Between: 1 Raj Kamal Housing Private Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director Pasupuleti Raviteja, S/o. Sesha Rao, Aged about 39 Years, Occ: Business, R/o. SBH Colony, Kanuru, Krishna District. 2 Pasupuleti Raviteja, S/o. Sesha Rao, R/o. S.B.H. Colony, Kanuru, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONERS AND The Station House Officer, Machavaram Police Station, Krishna District. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue Writ, order or direction, directing the Respondents not to launch any criminal proceedings against the petitioners in connection of Parvathneni layout in Survey No. 104, 105, 106, 108, 96/1, 96/3 and 95/1 etc., of Kanuru Village, Penamurluru Mandal, Krishna District by holding the action of the Respondents in launching various criminal proceedings against the petitioner including initiation of Sec. 5 of A.P. Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishment Act as without jurisdiction as arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms.I.MAAMU VANI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORDER: Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. None appears for the respondent. 2. It is stated that the 2nd petitioner is the Manager and Director of the 1st petitioner-Raj Kamal Housing Pvt. Limited, Kanuru, which had started various ventures for lay out in the year 1995 and one of such venture relates to Sy.Nos.104, 105, 106,108, 96/1, 96/3 and 95/1 etc., of Kanuru village, Penamulu mandal, Krishna District. Under various schemes the members have to pay initial amount and book the plot and then pay the monthly instalments. While so, one Ammisetty Adilakshmi, Dr.R.Sridhar Rao, and Ammisetty Venkata Subbalakshmi had also joined the scheme and paid some instalments. It is stated that many members defaulted the payment of instalments and therefore, there was a delay in obtaining the sanctioned layout due to the mistake committed by the Urban Development Authority and ultimately wrong lay out plan was released in which Gram Panchayat lands were included contrary to proposed lay out. Thus, it is the case of the petitioner that registration of the cases against it on the complaint filed by the said Ammisetty Adilakshmi and others in Cr.No.206 of 2004 is illegal and registering the said crime for the offence under Section 5 of the Protection of Depositors and Financial Establishment Act, 1999 ( for brevity, ‘the Act’) is also without jurisdiction. The case registered on the complaint of the said Sridhar Rao in Cr.No.491 of 2003 of Machavaram police station and the case registered on the complaint of the said Venkata Subbalakshmi in Cr.No.207 of 2004 are all illegal and unsustainable. 3. Counter has been filed by the 1st respondent stating that on the complaint of the said Sridhar Rao stating that the petitioners cheated him to the tune of Rs.91,000/-, Cr.No.491 of 2003 was registered on 11-09-2003 for the offence under Sections 406 and 420 IPC; and on the complaint of the said Adilakshmi stating that she was cheated to a tune of Rs.58,350/- Cr.No.206 of 2004 was registered under Section 420 IPC on 09-05-2004; and apart from that cases in Cr.Nos.377 of 2001; 151 of 2002; 213 of 2002; 344 of 2001; 249 of 2000; 63 of 2005 and 46 of 2005 were registered against the petitioner and the investigation discloses that the petitioner cheated the public at large to a tune of crores of rupees by promising to allot plots which are not in existence. It is stated that apart from that number of cases in Cr.Nos.344 of 2001; 377 of 2001; 151 of 2002; 213 of 2002; 249 of 2000; 63 of 2003; 48 of 2004 of Penamaluru police station; and Cr.No.5 of 2001; 21 of 2001; 189 of 2000; 491 of 2003; 207 of 2004; 206 of 2004 and 46 of 2005 of Law and Order, Machavaram police station were registered against the petitioner. It is stated that the registration of the cases including under Section 5 of the Act is also in accordance with law in view of the recent judgment of the Supreme Court setting aside the Full Bench judgment. 4. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that without impleading the complainant obtaining blanket stay order insofar as the crime registered under Section 5 of the Act is unwarranted and petitioner is not entitled for any relief. It is for the police to investigate and take appropriate action in accordance with law. 5. Accordingly, Writ Petition is dismissed with costs vacating the interim order granted earlier. _________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J 10th March, 2008 Tsy