IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4555 of 2010 DATE: 17.11.2011 Between: Gone Anand Netha and others …… Petitioners And The State through SHO PS Korutla, Karimnagar District Rep. by Public Prosecutor and another …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4555 of 2010 ORDER : The petitioners 1 to 4/A-1 to A-4 are accused of offences punishable under Sections 420 and 506 I.P.C. It is alleged that the 2nd respondent/defacto-complainant along with three others made an investment of Rs.2,75,000/-, Rs.5,00,000/-, Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- in Harish Security on the representation of A-1 to A-4 who promised to pay interest thereon every month, and that the accused did trading in share business in JRG securities with the amounts invested by the 2nd respondent and others and that in spite of demands, the accused did not return the investment amount nor paid interest thereon. It is further alleged that the accused obtained similar amounts from several others and that when all of them went and demanded the accused about their investments, they asked them to do whatever they liked and threatened them with dire consequences in case they approach them at their house. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that even if the allegations in F.I.R are taken on their face value, they do not attract the penal provisions for which the case was registered against them. He placed reliance on Hridaya Ranjan Pd.Verma V. State of Bihar[1] of the Supreme Court and contended that representation of the accused should be coupled with dishonest intention and that the element of cheating must be present at the time of inception of the transaction. On total reading of allegations in the report, it is evident that it is a case of simple money transaction between the parties and that the complainant and others invested the amounts with an intention to get interest thereon. In case their investments in the business are not repaid, then remedy of the investors is to approach the civil Court for necessary reliefs. I do not find any element of criminality in the transaction and that too at the inception of the transaction. It is evident that the allegations under Section 506 I.P.C were added to gain support for their case. The said allegations are not bonafide. 2) In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing F.I.R in Crime No.67/2010 of Korutla Police Station, Karimnagar Police Station. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J November 17, 2011 ksh [1] 2000(3) Supreme 13