HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRL.P.NOS. 5927 AND 5928 OF 2007 DATED: 09.07.2010 CRL.P.NO.5927 OF 2007 BETWEEN: Mamatha Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd and others .. Petitioners And The State of A.P. .. Respondent CRL.P.NO.5928 OF 2007 BETWEEN: K.Prameela .. Petitioner And The State of A.P. and others .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRL.P.NOS. 5927 AND 5928 OF 2007 COMMON ORDER: Criminal Petition No. 5928 of 2007 is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/Accused No.4 in C.C.No.20 of 2006 (relating to Crime No.306 of 2000 and 353 of 2001) on the file of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. Criminal Petition No.5927 of 2007 is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings against the accused No.1 and 4 in C.C.No.21 of 2006 (relating to Crime No. 289 of 2000, 41 of 2001 and 354 of 2001) on the file of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned public prosecutor appearing for the State. The brief facts necessary for consideration in these two criminal petitions are as follows: According to the prosecution, accused No.3 –K.Narasimha Rao and A4-Smt K.Prameela, who is the wife of A3 running the company i.e. M/s Mamatha Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd-A1 and Saritha Financier –A2. A3 and A4 collected the amount of Rs.5,49,79,500/- from the chit subscribers and fixed deposit holders in the name of A1-M/s Mamatha Chit Fund and A2- Saritha Financiers. The amount was diverted for the purpose of purchasing movable and immovable properties and ultimately they failed to repay the amount to the chit subscribers and deposit holders. Some of whom were examined as witnesses and filed complaints. Subsequently, they closed both the finance companies and according to the investigating officer, the investigation discloses that A3 and A4 cheated the chit subscribers and fixed deposit holders by collecting huge amounts and misappropriated the amounts and therefore, they are liable for punishment under Sections 420, 406 IPC and Section 5 of the A.P. Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishment Act, 1999. After completing the investigation, the police filed the charge sheets in both the cases. The instances relating to collection of deposits and misappropriation of such details are not required to be discussed in these criminal petitions. It has been contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that A1 who is dealing with chits business is the proprietary concern engaged in collection of deposits represented by A3, who is the husband of A4. A4, who is the wife of A-3 is no way concerned with the business activities and therefore, she cannot be prosecuted merely because she happened to be the wife of A-3. He would further submit that the charge sheet contains omnibus allegations, but did not contain any specific allegation against A4. It has been further contended that the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge lost sight of the fact that a special court is constituted under the A.P. Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishment Act, 1999 for the allegations in Crime No.306 of 2000 and A4 would be prejudiced by clubbing both the petitions. It is also the contention of the learned counsel that a petition has been filed before the Metropolitan Sessions Judge in Crl.M.P. (SR) Nos.4893 & 4894 of 2007 seeking discharge of A1 and A4 and that the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge without disposing of the said petitions, framed charges against A1 and A4 and other accused which is illegal. On the above mentioned grounds, the learned counsel seeks to quash the proceedings against A1 and A4. It requires to be noticed that in dealing with these two criminal petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. that this Court exercises its jurisdiction only when the indictment of the accused is ex facie false or when the allegations do not constitute any criminal offence. This Court at this stage is not supposed to quash the proceedings examining merits of the case. Perusal of the entire material gathered by the investigating agency prima facie discloses commission of offence under Sections 406 and 420 IPC by A1 and A4. Even if the charges were framed without disposing of the petitions filed seeking discharge of A1 and A4 and that clubbing of the case with the other cases will cause prejudice to the accused, this Court is not supposed to quash the proceedings. If really the petitioners intend to challenge the orders passed by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, they can challenge the orders in appropriate proceedings and can seek the remedy, if any, available for them under law. But, such grievance cannot form the basis of quashing the criminal proceedings, which are instituted basing on the investigation conducted by the police and which prima facie discloses involvement of the petitioners in the commission of offences alleged. On the aforesaid analysis, I am of the considered view that no case is made out to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioners/A1 and A4. The criminal petitions are, therefore, dismissed. The interim stay of the proceedings granted by this Court is hereby dissolved. ___________________ R.KANTHA RAO,J Dated: 09.07.2010 kvrm HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRL.P.NOS. 5927 AND 5928 OF 2007 DATED: 09.07.2010