THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Crl.P.No.6256 of 2008 ORAL ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings in C.C.No.764 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Suryapet. The petitioners are A1 to A4 and the second respondent is the defacto complainant in the calendar case. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be referred to as they arrayed in the calendar case. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: On 8.10.2006 at 11.00 a.m. the defacto complainant and his grand son Garlapati Chandan Reddy went to Khammam cross road on a scooter for the repair of Car self-motor and while they were returning, A1 and A2 came and demanded his grand son to pay Rs.60,000/- as assured earlier questioning as to why the said amount was not being paid and then A1 caught hold of the collar of the grand son of the defacto complainant and dragged him nearby motorcycle and with the help of other accused, they kidnapped his grandson and had taken away him in TATA Indica Car bearing registration No.AP12 U 5854 and when the defacto complainant tried to rescue his grand son, he was pushed away. Basing on a report lodged by the defacto complainant, the police registered the case in Cr.No.304/2006 under Section 365 IPC. It is contended on behalf of A1 to A4 that the grand son of the defacto complainant obtained a loan of Rs.17,50,000/- in the month of March, 2006 for purchase of three second-hand lorries bearing Registration Nos.AP24 V 1736, AP24 V 2137 and AP16 TU 5360 agreeing to repay the amounts in equal monthly instalments at the rate of Rs.60,000/- per month, but failed to pay any of the instalments as agreed and on 5.8.2006, the Branch Manager of Sriram Transport Finance Company, Miryalaguda Branch issued a Telegram to the grand son of the defacto complainant to pay Rs.2,40,000/- towards arrears, but there was no response from him and on 8.10.2006, on information, the Branch Manager (A1) along with A2 and A3 went to Khammam cross roads and asked the grand son of the complainant to pay the arrears, for which the latter expressed his inability and then A1 asked the grand son of the defacto complainant to show the lorries and therefore, the grand son of the complainant brought them to L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad, but he did not show the lorries and stated that he was not aware of where the lorries were plying and in order to avoid the payment of the instalments, the defacto complainant filed the calendar case and there is no incriminating material to prosecute A1 to A4 for the alleged offence. On the other hand, it is contended on behalf of the defacto complainant that there is clear material to the effect that A1 to A4 kidnapped his grand son and hence it is a fit case to prosecute them for the alleged offence. However, it is conceded by him that after sometime, A1 released the grand son of the complainant on that day. Now the point for consideration is whether there are sufficient grounds to quash the proceedings in the calendar case. There is no dispute about the grand son of the complainant taking loans from the accused for purchasing the lorries and non-payment of corresponding instalments. Therefore, A1 (Branch Manager), has got every right to proceed against the grand son of the complainant and also lorries for the repayment of the loan amount. It is not the claim of the defacto complainant that his grand son was rescued from A1 to A4 by anybody. It is also pertinent to note here that what is claimed on behalf of A1 to A4 that only in connection with the payment of instalment amounts and for showing the lorries, they accompanied the grand son of the complainant to Hyderabad and having promised to show the lorries, the grand son of the complainant failed to do so and thereafter he left them. In the facts and circumstances of the case, prima facie much credence is to be given to their claim. Therefore, there is no sufficient material to prosecute A1 to A4 for the alleged offence. Ultimately, the proceedings in the calendar case are liable to be quashed. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings in the calendar case are hereby quashed. ________________________ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dated: 14-10-2011 DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Crl.P.No.6256 of 2008 14.10.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Crl.P.No.6256 of 2008 Date: 14th October, 2011 Between: Thandra Prasad & others. .. Petitioners/A1 to A4 And State of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad & another. .. Respondents