HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5746 OF 2006 Date: 19.01.2010 Between: Avula Veerasekhar Yadav @ Avula Veerasekhar Rao ……Petitioner And: Smt Ala Laxmi Samrajyam and another ……Respondents. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5746 OF 2006 ORDER: This petition is filed by the accused under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing F.I.R in Crime No.105 of 2005 of Dachepalli police station, Guntur District relating to offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code. The 1st respondent filed private complaint in the court of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Gurazala against the petitioner/accused alleging the above said offences against him; and the Magistrate by order dated 04.03.2005 forwarded the private complaint to Dachepalli police under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for investigation and report. Thereupon, the Dachepalli police registered the private complaint received from the Magistrate as case in Crime No.105 of 2005 and issued F.I.R. As can be seen from the complaint, it is alleged that the accused started real estate business in the year 1992 in relation to vacant plots at Venigandla village of Peddakakani Mandal, Guntur District in the name of ‘Sri Chaitanya real estate’ and that the accused came to Gamalapadu village, Dachepalli Mandal where the complainant is residing and running a school, and made the complainant to join as member in a scheme. It is further alleged that the accused collected Rs.100/- from the complainant as admission fee on 08.08.1992 and issued pass book bearing No.626 to the complainant and told the complainant that she was allotted plot No.378 measuring 200 sq. yards and that as per the scheme, the complainant has to pay Rs.500/- for each installment. According to the complainant, she paid installments amounting to Rs.16,900/- and the accused did not approach her for collecting subsequent installments and even though the complainant requested the accused for registration of the plot, the accused did not come for registration. The private complaint was filed by the 1st respondent before the Magistrate on 03.03.2005. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that the case is one which is purely of civil nature, even if allegations in the private complaint are assumed to be true and that after a lapse of more than ten years and after having lost her remedies under civil law due to bar by limitation, the complainant filed the private complaint before the Magistrate to circumvent civil law and to arm- twist the accused for some settlement and that it is nothing but sheer abuse of process of criminal law. Placing reliance on Mohd. Shamim v. Nahid Begum[1] and S.W. Palanitkar v. Stte of Bihar[2], it is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that in order to attract offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, the alleged dishonest intention should be proved to be in existence even at inception of the transaction and that private complaint should not be entertained after ten years of cause of action. In both the above reported decisions, the court was considering final report/charge sheet filed against the respective accused. In the case on hand the private complaint was merely forwarded to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. It is for the investigating officer to make proper investigation as per law and to file final report under Section 170(3) of Cr.P.C by way of either charge sheeting the accused or referring the case on any legal ground. It would be premature at this stage to come to any conclusion whether the accused had any dishonest intention since prior to inception of the transaction between the parties. It is for the investigating officer to collect the said information during course of investigation. It is only when the investigating officer finds that all the ingredients required for charging the accused for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code are existing, then only the investigating officer will file charge sheet against the accused. No doubt, as contended by the petitioner’s counsel there are cases in which some persons are filing criminal cases even in respect of transactions which are purely in civil nature. At the same time, one cannot forget present trend of cheating public by several schemes and collecting monies from the public under one head or the other. This trend had made the law makers to enact the Andhra Pradesh Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act and other enactments to protect innocent public who are lured by dishonest people who float several schemes and collect monies and slip away. One cannot come to any conclusion this way or the other at this stage in this crime. It can only be decided after completion of investigation by the investigating officer; and I am of the opinion that it would be premature for this court to interfere with investigation in this case at the threshold. I do not find any valid or legal reasons to quash F.I.R in this case at this stage. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. ___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J Date:19.01.2010. Gk. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5746 OF 2006 Date:19.01.2010. Gk. [1] 2005 (1) ALD (Crl.) 552 (SC) [2] 2002 (1) ALD (Crl.) 108 (SC)