HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4271 of 2007 & CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4275 of 2007 DATE:03.12.2009 CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4271 of 2007 Between: Mr. N. Ram Mohan …….Petitioner And: State of A.P., rep. By the P.P., High Court of A.P., Hyderabad ……Respondent CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4275 of 2007 Between: Mr. N. Ram Mohan …….Petitioner And: State of A.P., rep. By the P.P., High Court of A.P., Hyderabad ……Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4271 of 2007 & CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4275 of 2007 COMMON ORDER: Both the petitions are filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the 3r d accused for quashing proceedings in C.C.Nos.35 of 2007 and 36 of 2007 on the file of VII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Hayatnagar, Cyberabad in so far as the petitioner is concerned. The Inspector of Police, Vanasthalipuram Police Station filed two separate charge sheets in the lower court in Crime Nos.694 of 2006 and 714 of 2006 of Vanasthalipuram Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 454 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code against A-1 and for offence punishable under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code against A-2 and A-3. The petitioner/A-3 is stated to be a practicing advocate. It is alleged that A-1 and other juvenile offenders committed thefts of gold ornaments etc., and pledged the same with A-2 and A-3. According to the prosecution, A-2 and A-3 are money lenders and pawn brokers. According to the petitioner, he is not a money lender and pawn broker and that his wife is running money lending and pawn broking business under name and style of Meenakshi Jewelleries. It is immaterial either for this petition or for criminal cases pending in the lower court as to who is running Meenakshi Jewelleries whether the petitioner or his wife. According to the prosecution, A-1 was arrested on 13.11.2006 and on interrogation, A-1 made statement in which he stated that he pledged the stolen properties with A-2 and A-3. Thus, as per prosecution case, it is A-3 who was receiver of stolen property and not Meenakshi Jewelleries. In pursuance of the alleged statement of A-1, the police is stated to have recovered part of the stolen properties from A-2 and that rest of the stolen properties pledged with A-3 could not be recovered as he was absconding. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that when the police were harassing the petitioner and his wife in collusion with another person against whom the petitioner filed cheque bounce case, they approached this Court by way of W.P.No.3791 of 2007 for writ of MANDAMUS directing Saroornagar police and L.B. Nagar police not to interfere with money lending business of the petitioner’s wife and not to harass the petitioner and his wife without following procedure of law. After filing of counter in that writ petition, this Court by the order dated 23.03.2007 closed the said writ petition because the respondents-police therein denied the allegations made by the petitioner and his wife in writ petition. It is contended that Vanasthalipuram Police Station as well as Saroornagar Police Station and L.B. Nagar Police Stations are located in Cyberabad Commissionerate and that collusively the present false cases were filed against the petitioner by way of abuse of process of criminal law. As the matter now stands, there is no indication that the present criminal cases were filed with any motive. It is for the petitioner to establish the same before the Magistrate during trial of the criminal cases in the court. It is contended that from the allegations contained in the charge sheets, the prosecution could not make out ingredients for Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code to the effect that A-3 knowingly possessed or retained possession of stolen properties. It is a matter for evidence during trial in the lower court. Since A-3 could not be arrested, no part of the stolen property could be recovered from his possession. In case A-3 appears or surrenders either before the police or in the lower court, then the police may take some steps to take A-3 into their custody and to further investigate the cases with permission of the lower court during which some more evidence may come to light. At this stage, it is premature for this Court to come to the conclusion that the prosecution did not make out case under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code. Thus, on considering all the aspects of this case, I do not find any valid or legal reasons to quash proceedings in both the criminal cases pending in the lower court. In the result, both the criminal petitions are dismissed. ___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU,J Date:03.12.2009 Gk. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4271 of 2007 & CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4275 of 2007 DATE:03.12.2009 Gk.