THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.581 of 2010 Date:09.11.2011 Between: Gone Vittal and others. ..... Petitioners. AND The State of A.P. rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another. .....Respondents/Defacto-complainant. The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.581 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioners are father and his sons. The 2nd respondent is the defacto-complainant. The defacto- complainant filed a private complaint before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Metpalli. It was referred to police under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. A case was registered under Sections 418 & 420 read with Section 34 IPC. The petitioners now contend that prima facie, no case is made out 2. Sri Challa Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners contend that the transaction was in 2006 and the case was laid in 2010 and that it is preposterous for the second respondent to launch prosecution against the petitioners so belatedly. Sri V. Ravi Kiran Rao, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, on the other hand, contended that the petitioners have been seeking to stop the legitimate prosecution at the very threshold and that the case at this stage is maintainable. 3. The complaint attributed overt acts not only to petitioner No.3 but to all the petitioners. Petitioner No.3 is said to be the Office In-Charge of J.R.G Securities Limited. In the complaint, it was recorded that all the accused induced the second respondent to deposit monies with JRG Securities Limited and that the petitioner deposited `.3,00,000/- accordingly. 4. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, petitioners 1, 2, 4 & 5 have nothing to do with JRG Securities Limited. The 3rd petitioner, however, is Office In-Charge of the same. The misappropriation of the amounts would be tantamount to the offences under Sections 418 & 420 IPC against A3. I consider that where there is no complicity of the other petitioners, no case can be instituted against the other petitioners. 5. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent contended that it is not as though there was no complicity on the part of the petitioners including the 3rd petitioner. He submitted that the very averments in the private complaint are that all the petitioners induced the second respondent to invest monies in JRG Securities Limited. The contention of the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, however, is not supported by any other evidence. I am afraid that where the 3rd petitioner was the employee of JRG Securities Limited, other petitioners cannot be held responsible for the investment by the 2nd respondent. I, therefore, consider that no prima facie case is made out against the petitioners 1, 2, 4 & 5. 6. At the same time, prima facie case certainly is made out against the 3rd petitioner who allegedly participated in the investments by the 2nd respondent. In view of the averments of the complaint, prima facie case is made out against the 3rd petitioner. 7. Accordingly, this petition is allowed so far as petitioners 1, 2, 4 & 5 are concerned. The complaint against the petitioners 1, 2, 4 & 5 is hereby quashed. The complaint, however, is prima facie maintainable against the 3rd petitioner. This petition accordingly is dismissed so far as the 3rd petitioner is concerned. The petition is accordingly ordered. _________________________ JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR Date:09.11.2011 mrb