HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR Crl.P. No. 10610 of 2010 DATED: 12.12.2011 Between: 1. Mohd. Shareef 2. S.A. Latheef 3. S.A. Salar .. Petitioners/ A2 to A4 And 1. The Central Bank of India 2. The State of A.P. .. Respondents O R D E R:- 1. Heard Sri V.S.R. Anjaneyulu, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Ch. Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the 1st respondent-Central Bank of India which is the de facto complainant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 2. The petitioners herein are A2 to A4 in Cr.No. 52 of 2007 on the file of Satyanarayanapuram Police Station of Vijayawada City. The said case was registered on a Court referred complaint. The offences alleged are those punishable under Sections 480 and 420 IPC. The present petition is filed to quash the said F.I.R. so far as the petitioners are concerned. 3. It is represented that these three petitioners who are A2 to A4 are sons of A1 – Smt.Fathimunnisa. In the complaint filed by the Bank before the learned Magistrate concerned, mainly two allegations have been made. The first is that A1 along with her sons already mortgaged the title deeds in respect of a landed property in favour of the Union Bank of India, Vijayawada in connection with the loan obtained by A1, later on she herself again created fake title deeds along with the other accused and again mortgaged the same with the complainant-Bank and took another loan. The second allegation is that in the title deeds mortgaged with the complainant-Bank, A1 has also shown that the extent of the land covered by the title deeds is much larger than what it is. It would be sufficient to note that these are the two allegations on which the complainant-Bank has filed the complaint alleging the offence of cheating and it is its version that but for the above representations that there is no prior mortgage and that the extent is also larger than what is mentioned in the title deeds, it would not have granted the loan. These two allegations show the offence of cheating, but their truthfulness or otherwise has to be decided on evidence. So far as the offence under Section 480 IPC is concerned, its applicability can be looked into by the investigating officer. 4. Sri V.S.R. Anjaneyulu pointed out that the allegations mainly show the complicity of A1 who is not the petitioner in this petition and he further pointed that the transactions at best show a second mortgage in favour of the complainant-Bank, and therefore, this can be said to be a case where even if the allegations are believed no offence of cheating can be said to have been made out. His contention is that if the complainant-Bank fails to recover the balance amount left after the amount is recovered by the mortgagee -Bank under the first mortgage, the complainant can proceed to recover the same from the accused personally. 5. Sri Siva Reddy pointed out that the allegations made in the complaint disclose the offence of cheating and since A2 was the earlier debtor in respect of whose loan the title deeds were first mortgaged and since A3 and A4 are the children of A1 and all of them are close relatives, it prima facie shows that all of them colluded in cheating the complainant-Bank as each one of them must be attributed with the knowledge of the first mortgage and also the extent of the land. 6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor argued based upon the instructions received by them that investigation is still pending and the police have gathered sufficient material also to show the complicity of the accused. 7. The allegations in the complaint as already mentioned show the offence of cheating against all the petitioners and the matter is under investigation. 8. In the above circumstances, I am of the opinion that this is not a fit case for interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 9. Sri V.S.R. Anjaneyulu at the end argued that he should have been supplied with the copy of the instructions received by the Additional Public Prosecutor or further information obtained by Sri Siva Reddy from his client regarding the stage of investigation and material gathered so that he may file proper reply to controvert the case. I think that the petitioners have no right to get such information as they can put forth their pleas before the concerned Investigating Officer, who is bound to take into consideration the same. On the allegations made and the submissions made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor regarding the information obtained by the concerned police in the course of investigation, I am of the opinion that as mentioned supra, this is not a fit case for interference under Section 482 Cr.PC. 10. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. __________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J 12.12.2011 bcj