IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD SATURDAY THE TWENTYNINETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNAMOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7033 OF 2008 Between: Smt.C. Brinda Devi & Ors. … Petitioners-A1 to A3 V/s. V. Madhan Mohan & Anr. … Respondents-Complainant Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri C. Praveen Kumar Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : Sri I. Koti Reddy Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Addl.Public Prosecutor The Court made the following : (Order follows next page). THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNAMOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7033 OF 2008 O R D E R : This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash proceedings in CC.No.210 of 2008 on the file of the Court of II-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati, registered for offence punishable under section 379 of IPC against the petitioners herein (A-1 to A-3 therein) on the basis of a complaint given by the first respondent herein (the defacto complainant). 2. For the convenience, I would like to refer the parties as arrayed in the calender case. 3. The allegations made against A-1 to A-3 are that they involved in theft of two fixed deposit receipts of Vijay Bank, one locker key of Bank of Baroda, cash of Rs.50,000=00 and one sale deed kept in the almirah of the defacto complainant at his house in Tirupati. 4. The police after conducting necessary enquiry filed final report to the effect that on the basis of investigation done, it was revealed that there was no locker in the Bank of Baroda and there was no account in the name of the defacto complainant in Vijay Bank, Tirupati, and therefore, the allegations made against the accused happened to be false and hence accordingly the final report was filed before the learned Magistrate, who thereby closed the matter after giving notice about it to the defacto complainant. 5. Thereafter, the defacto complainant filed protest petition and sworn statements of himself and other witnesses were recorded on the basis of which, the case was taken on file for the said offence. 6. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners-accused that absolutely there is no basis that the defacto complainant got the said locker and the said account and in fact without any basis the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance of the matter, which therefore, is not tenable and the accused should not be subjected to unnecessary harassment. 7. The learned counsel for the defacto complainant has submitted that basing on the sworn statements of the defacto complainant and others subsequent to the filing of the protest petition rightly the case was taken on file by the learned Magistrate and necessary trial is to be conducted in the matter and then the defacto complainant can produce necessary evidence and it is not proper to dismiss the proceedings at this stage. It is in fact conceded by him that there is no material evidence with regard to three aspects in question now. 8. The point for consideration is whether there are sufficient grounds in order to uphold the claim of the accused. 10. It is pertinent to note here that no record has been produced before the Court with regards to the existence of the said fixed deposit receipts, locker key, share certificates and sale deed which are the main basis to take the case on file. Unless there is relevant material, it is not proper on the part of the Magistrate to take cognizance of the case just basing upon the sworn statements of the defacto complainant and others, which can be substantiated only basing upon the said material only. In fact there is a statement of the concerned Branch Manager, Vijay Bank, Tirupati to the effect that there are no such fixed deposit receipts and in fact no compliant was given by the defacto complainant to him for taking necessary action in that regard . There is also a statement of the Senior Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, Tirupati to the effect that there are no lockers in the name of the defacto complainant in his bank. In order to counter the statements some material should have been placed before the Court by the defacto complainant but the defacto complainant failed to place the same. Unless there is relevant material, no body should be prosecuted, as it amounts to unnecessary harassment of him , which is against the principles of criminal justice system. 11. Therefore, taking cognizance of the matter just on the basis of the sworn statements of the defacto complainant and others without producing relevant material is not tenable and accordingly the proceedings are to be quashed. 12. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed, quashing the proceedings in CC.No.310 of 2008 on the file of the Court of II-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati. ___________________________________ JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY. 29-10-2011 I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7033 OF 2008 CIRCULATION No. 29 Date:29-10-2011 Court Master: I s L Computer No. 43