HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.5903 of 2007 Date: March 12, 2010 Between: 1. Bellamkonda Upender and 3 others. ... Petitioners And 1. Gopagani Rangaiah and another ... Respondents * * * ORDER: Heard the counsel. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 14.2.2007 the de facto complainant lodged a report in the police station alleging that he started Sri Venkatalakshmi Auto and Leasing Finance for providing loans for the purpose of two wheelers on hypothecation and the same was registered in the year 2000. It is further stated that he appointed the petitioners and A-1 as his agents to collect the loan installments amount from the borrowers. It is also stated that hypothecation papers, RC books and vehicle keys of 21 vehicles were handed over to A-1 under receipt. Having collected the amount from the borrowers, A-1 and the petitioners herein had not paid to the de facto complainant. On inquiry with the 21 borrowers, the de facto complainant came to know that A-1 and the petitioners had collected Rs.4.00 lakhs from the borrowers and the same was not paid to him. It is further stated that the de facto complainant inspected some of the vehicle papers out of 21 borrowers and noticed that his signatures were forged on RC books and also hypothecation clearance. 3. Further it is stated that the petitioners are innocent of the offences alleged against them and they had been falsely implicated as a counterblast to the civil suits filed by the petitioners. 4. It is also stated that they are neither agents nor worked under the de facto complainant and they never collected any amounts from the borrowers. The de facto complainant floated lucky scheme in the name of Sri Venkatalakshmi Leasing and Auto Finance and as per the scheme, the members have to pay Rs.1,000/- every month for 40 months and every month there will be a draw. Whoever wins in the draw, he will get an amount of Rs.38,000/-. The de facto complainant run the scheme for ten months and thereafter abandoned the scheme. The members are paying monthly installments directly to the Auto Finance of the de facto complainant. At the beginning of the scheme, the petitioners introduced some of the members to the Auto Finance Company, but they had no role more than that in the scheme or in the finance company. 5. It is also further stated that the de facto complainant kept the hypothecation papers, RC books and vehicle keys of 21 vehicles with A-1 and thereafter the de facto complainant had taken back the papers and keys relating to those vehicles on 22.6.2002 from A-1 under a receipt. Even the vehicle papers and keys were handed over by the de facto complainant to A-1 and there was no allegation against the petitioners that the papers and keys were given to them. 6. Further it is stated that the de facto complainant had taken loan from petitioner Nos.1, 4, A-1 and others. As the de facto complainant did not pay the amount as demanded by the petitioners 1, 4 and others, suits in O.S.No.271 of 2003 and O.S.No.66 of 2003 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Suryapet, were filed by petitioner No.1 against the de facto complainant and the same were also decreed. Similarly, petitioner No.4 also had filed a suit in O.S.No.238 of 2003 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Huzurnagar, against the wife of the de facto complainant and the same was decreed. A-1 had filed suit in O.S.No.239 of 2003 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Huzurnagar, and the same also was decreed. The de facto complainant filed the present complaint to evade the payment in the civil suits filed by the petitioners and others and as a counterblast to the civil suits. 7. It is also stated that a lucky scheme was started in the month of March 2000 for financing to two wheelers and the same was abandoned in the month of February 2001. The de facto complainant lodged a report in February 2007 i.e., after lapse of 6 years alleging that agents collected amounts and did not pay the collected amount to him. If really the amount was collected by the petitioners, the de facto complainant did not keep quiet for about six long years. 8. Further it is stated that during the course of investigation, police examined and recorded the statements of 21 persons mentioned in the complaint and they had categorically stated that they had paid the amount directly to the de facto complainant and obtained clearance and there is absolutely no role attributed to the petitioners in collecting the amounts. The ingredients to constitute offences under Sections 403, 406, 465 and 420 IPC are not made out. The allegations mentioned in the complaint are only civil in nature. 9. In the light of the facts and circumstances, after careful consideration, this Court is of the considered opinion that these factual controversies cannot be gone into in a criminal petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Liberty is given to the petitioners to urge all the grounds at the appropriate stage. 10. Accordingly, the criminal petition shall stand dismissed. ____________________ (P.S. NARAYANA, J) Date: March 12, 2010. BSB