IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA CRL.P.NOs.5117 OF 2007, 5666 OF 2007 AND 5495 OF 2007. Date:03.03.2010 CRL.P.NO.5117 OF 2007:- Between:- S.Subramanian and others ..Petitioners/A-1, A-2 and A-4 And State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another. .. Respondents And CRL.P.NO.5666 OF 2007:- Between:- S.Subramanian and others ..Petitioners/A-1, A-2 and A-4 And State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another. .. Respondents And CRL.P.NO.5495 OF 2007:- Between:- S.Subramanian and others ..Petitioners/A-1, A-2 and A-4 And State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another. .. Respondents COMMON ORDER:- Heard Sri G.Rama Gopal, the learned counsel representing petitioners in all these criminal petitions and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing respondent No.1. 2. The petitioners-A-1, A-2 and A-4 in C.C.No.250 of 2000 on the file of VII Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam had filed Criminal Petition No.5117 of 2007 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, referred to as ‘Code’ for the purpose of convenience) to quash the said proceedings. Likewise, Crl.P.No.5495 of 2007 had been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.672 of 2000 on the file of II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. Likewise, Crl.P.No.5666 of 2007 had been filed by the said petitioners-A-1, A-2 and A-4 to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.673 of 2000 on the file of II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. 3. All these criminal petitions are being disposed of by a common order in view of the commanality of the questions of fact and questions of law involved. 4. Sri G.Rama Gopal, learned counsel representing the petitioners would maintain that A-3 is no more and the original charge sheet was laid as against A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-4 and since A-3 being no more, the rest of the accused in the original charge sheet – A-1, A-2 and A-4 are challenging the proceedings under challenge in respective criminal petitions under Section 482 of the Code. The learned counsel would maintain that the petitioners are innocent and had not committed any of the offences with which they had been charged with. The learned counsel also pointed out to the additional charge sheet filed and also the statements made by the witnesses wherein the names of the petitioners had not been specified. The names of other accused had been specified in the charge sheet and on this ground alone, these proceedings under challenge are liable to be quashed. Further, while elaborating the submissions, the learned counsel also pointed out to the averments made in the original charge sheet and also the additional charge sheet and further specifically pointed out the other material available on record inclusive of Form No.32 and would maintain that in the light of the same, to permit the prosecution to further proceed as against the petitioners would not be legal or just especially in the light of the view expressed by the Apex Court in STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS, APPELLANTS VS. CH.BHAJAN LAL AND OTHERS, RESPONDENTS[1]. 5. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor would maintain that it is true that in the original charge sheet, it was referred as A-1 as Chairman and A-2 and A-4 as Directors in M/s.G.N.S.Nidhi Limited. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor also would maintain that it is also true that an additional charge sheet also had been laid showing the other accused A-5 to A-11 as well but in additional charge sheet also, specifically, it has been specified that A-1 to A-4 are the Chairman and Directors and Founders of M/s.G.N.S.Nidhi Limited and are residents of Chennai. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further had drawn the attention of this Court to the specific allegations made in the original charge sheet and also the additional charge sheet and further would maintain that in the light of the fact that certain receipts had also been given by the first petitioner to contend that at the relevant point of time, he was not the Chairman of M/s.G.N.S.Nidhi Limited may not be a sustainable contention. At any rate, though certain witnesses had specified names of those shown as accused in the additional charge sheet, the other witnesses specifically had stated about those concerned with M/s.G.N.S.Nidhi Limited inclusive of these petitioners. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also would maintain that the factual controversy as to whether these petitioners were the Chairman and Directors of the concerned company at the relevant point of time may have to be gone into at the appropriate stage. Further, since some material is available on record relating to the involvement, these being factual controversies, such factual controversies cannot be decided at this stage. Hence, these are not fit matters to be interfered with under Section 482 of the Code. 5. Heard the learned counsel on record and perused the grounds and also the allegations made in the original charge sheet and also the allegations made in the additional charge sheet and the statements produced before this Court and the copy of Form No.32 as well. The petitioners had been arrayed as A-1, A-2 and A-4 respectively in the respective C.Cs already referred to supra under Sections 406, 420 and 120(b) read with 34 I.P.C. It is the case of the petitioners that as per the allegations made in the charge sheet dated 07.07.2000, the petitioners are the Chairman and the Directors of M/s.G.N.S.Nidhi Limited and they had opened a branch at Visakhapatnam in 1996. The petitioners collected deposits from general public and subsequently, they had closed down the business in Visakhapatnam and thereby, the petitioners cheated the defacto complainant and other persons who made deposits with the M/s.G.N.S.Nidhi Limited. Further, specific stand had been taken that the petitioners seized to be the Directors of the aforesaid M/s.G.N.S.Nidhi Limited on 24.10.1994, 24.10.1994 and 19.06.1994 respectively and a certified copy of Form No.32 issued by the Office of the Registrar of Companies also had been placed before this court. 6. Further, it is the case of the petitioners that even if the allegations made in the charge sheet dated 07.07.2000 are to be taken into consideration, except making all the allegations against these petitioners, being the Chairman and Directors of M/s.G.N.S Nidhi Limited, no specific allegations as such had been made. The relevant 161 Cr.P.C. statements also had been heavily relied on. 7. Further specifically, the additional charge sheet dated 30.07.2001 adding A-5 to A-11 also had been relied on and the contents thereof further had been pointed out. This Court had gone through the allegations made in the original charge sheet and also the additional charge sheet. While commencing the additional charge sheet showing A-5 to A-11 also as accused, apart from A-1 to A-4, who were originally arrayed as accused in the original charge sheet, it was specifically mentioned that A-1 to A-4 were the Chairman and Directors and Founders of M/s.G.N.S Nidhi Limited and are residents of Chennai. It is no doubt true that A-3 is no more. Strong reliance was placed on AIR 1992 SUPREME COURT 604(1) wherein the Apex Court observed as follows: “Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.” 8. This Court, on a careful analysis of the material available on record, is of the considered opinion that these factual controversies cannot be gone into at this stage. May be that these grounds, with all seriousness, may be urged at the appropriate time. These are not fit matters to be interfered with under Section 482 of the Code. 9. Accordingly, these Criminal Petitions shall stand dismissed. It is needless to say that the petitioners are at liberty to move appropriate applications under the Code, if they are so advised. __​______________ P.S.NARAYANA, J 3rd March, 2010 AMD [1] AIR 1992 SUPREME COURT 604(1)