IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Criminal Petition No.1249 of 2009 Between: Bathula Rajeshwara Rao … Petitioner/Accused and The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by the Station House Officer, Hayathnagar Police Station, R.R.District and another. … Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Criminal Petition No.1249 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner is sole accused, in Crime No.63 of 2009 punishable under Section 406 and 420 IPC on the file of the Station House Officer, Hayathnagar Police Station, Ranga Reddy District, filed the present criminal petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash the said crime. Brief facts of the case are that the 2nd respondent is the de facto complainant, who lodged a complaint before the Station House Officer, Hayathnagar Police Station against the petitioner alleging that as the petitioner was working for the last eight years as Supervisor-cum-Collection in-charge in Jaya Bharathi Chit Fund, he entrusted cheques bearing Nos.736311 and 293844 of Andhra Bank and Deccan Grameena Bank for an amount of Rs.6,25,000/- and 1,55,000/-, respectively, to the petitioner for collection in addition to entrust the work of collection of cash from others. It is alleged in the complaint that the petitioner went away for collection of amounts on 30.01.2009 about 11.30 a.m., and thereafter, he did not turn up to the office for two days. When the 2nd respondent tried to contact over his cell phone, he found the petitioner’s cell phone switched off. Therefore, as the petitioner was working in his office for the last eight years and on 01.02.2009 happened to be the Sunday, he believed that the petitioner would turn up to the office on 02.02.2009, Monday. Even on 02.02.2009, as the petitioner did not turn up to the office, he entertained a doubt and contacted the persons, from whom he asked the petitioner to collect the money, and they have informed the 2nd respondent that they have paid the amounts. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent also found some cheques missing in his office. Under the above circumstances, the 2nd respondent lodged a complaint and the 1st respondent taking cognizance of the allegations mentioned in the complaint, registered a crime in FIR No.63 of 2009 punishable under Section 406 and 420 IPC. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that no offence is made out against the petitioner and as such registration of the crime against the petitioner is illegal. He further submitted that the elements of cheating as well as the offence punishable under Section 406 IPC is not made out in the complaint. Therefore, he prays this Court to quash the said crime. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the allegations made in the complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent against the petitioner constitutes an offence punishable under Sections 406 and 420 IPC and the matter needs to be investigated in detail by the investigating authority. Therefore, this criminal petition may be dismissed. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material on record. As could be seen from the docket proceedings of this Court, this Court on 02.03.2009, while ordering notice before admission, initially granted interim stay of investigation for a period of four weeks and thereafter, on 24.12.2010, the interim stay granted earlier was extended until further orders. At this stage, on behalf of the 2nd respondent, vacate petition has been filed, inter alia, stating that the petitioner encashed the cheques that were entrusted to him for collection and he did not deposit the amounts with the 2nd respondent. Therefore, the petitioner committed offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. There is no denial of existence of the Chit fund company in question and there is also no averment in the petition denying the factum of employment of the petitioner in the said company. The averments that have been made in the complaint, lodged by the 2nd respondent, are only the allegations. The question as to whether the petitioner is under employment of the chit fund company or not and whether he was entrusted with the cheques in question besides the other work for collection of the amounts, is a matter to be investigated by the investigating agency and at this stage of the proceedings, the finding, if any, on the said aspect, may cause prejudice to the investigation being done by the Investigating Agency. It is apparent on the face of the record that due to the stay granted by this Court, the investigation might not have been proceeded with. However, the allegations that have been made in the complaint would constitute a prima facie case against the petitioner and as such, this is not a fit case wherein the relief in the petition seeking to quash the F.I.R., can be entertained at this threshold. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, it is needless to observe that the stay granted by this Court stands vacated. ________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Date: 28.09.2011 LSK