IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No : 2939 of 2007 Between: M.Jyothi . .Petitioner And The State of A.P. rep. By Public Prosecutor and another. .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No : 2939 of 2007 ORDER : This Criminal Petition is filed by the accused No.11 (A-11) for quashing proceedings in C.C. No.911 of 2006 of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Karimnagar relating to the offence punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. A-11 is a house-wife. It is alleged that A-11 purchased car from Sulochana motors and obtained finance on the car from the defacto- complainant namely Mahindra Finance, Karimnagar after submitting invoice, R.C. Book and other required forms and subsequently sold away the same to another person, who again obtained finance on the same car in collusion with Sulochana motors. A-1 to A-10 in the case are partners, manager, staff and others relating to Sulochana motors. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that in fact, A-11 was cheated by Sulochana motors and that she is the victim and not perpetrator of fraud against Mahindra Finance. The 2nd respondent is Branch manager of Mahindra Finance, who lodged report to the police, on the basis of which the police registered case in Crime No.187 of 2004, investigated into the same and filed charge sheet before the lower Court. The petitioner’s counsel contended that even as per allegations in the charge sheet, it was A-3 who deceived A-11 stating that if car is purchased, it will be engaged by Singareni Collieries, Godavarikhani on rent and that on that representation, A-11 purchased car paying Rs.86,000/- to A-1 to A-4. It is further stated in the charge sheet that A-11 is friend of A-3. It is not known how A-11 purchased car by paying only Rs.86,000/- without there being any finance on the car. Unless A-11 has subscribed her signatures wherever A-1 to A4 wanted, she would not have obtained finance from Mahindra Finance. Having obtained finance on the car purchased by her from Mahindra Finance, it is not known how A-11 again sold the car to another customer. The entire transaction relating to A-11 appears to be fishy. It is a matter which has to be gone into by the lower Court after full trial when entire oral evidence as well as documents relating to the transaction with and transaction by A-11 will be placed before the lower Court. At this stage, it is difficult to conclude that there is no prima facie case against A-11 for the offences alleged in the charge sheet. In the result, the petition is dismissed. ________________________________ JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU November 27, 2009 KSH