HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Criminal Petition No.7211 of 2008 ORDER: This criminal petition is filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing further proceedings against the petitioners-A.1 & A.3 in CC No.777 of 2008 on the file of the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The 2nd respondent herein filed private complaint before the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad against the petitioners and another, alleging the offences under sections 405, 409, 415 and 420 IPC and the same was forwarded to the police by the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and there upon, the police registered a case in Cr.No.213 of 2007 and after investigation, police filed charge sheet and it was taken cognizance in CC No.777 of 2008 by the learned Magistrate for the above said offences. 4. According to the prosecution, the first petitioner-A.1 is stated to be the proprietor of M/s Aarbee Enterprises and 2nd petitioner-A.3 is the husband of A.1. The complainant alleges that A.1 and A.3 were his friends and were in need of money for developing their business by availing over draft facility. The complainant obliged them by offering title deeds of his mother as security for the loan availed by A.1 and A.3 and there after, some disputes arose between them and in spite of his repeated requests to release the document from the bank, A.1 failed to release the same and therefore, they filed suit OS No.692 of 2002 (OS No.4307 of 2001 old number). The complainant also filed IA No.880 of 2001 for interim relief for the release of the documents and in the said affidavit, A.2-Branch Manager of Vijaya Bank filed counter, stating that the over draft facilities were still in force and the loan was outstanding and therefore, the documents could not be released. A.3 on behalf of himself and A.1, filed a similar counter to the effect that the loan was outstanding. The complainant alleges that the outstanding amount as on 16.07.2001 was subsequently revised without any communication to him and his mother by opening a new A/c No.6187 and thereafter, A.2 got himself transferred to Bangalore with an intention to escape and avoid legal consequences and the new Chief Manager, who came in the place of A.2, released the title deed pertaining to his mother, realizing that mistake has occurred during the tenure of A.2 and a memo was also issued to that effect. The complainant therefore alleges that opening a new A/c No.6187 and keeping the title deeds as a security for the said loan account without any intimation to him or his mother, amounts to cheating. 5. Admittedly, the complainant offered title deeds of his mother for the loan availed by A.1 and A.3 from the bank vide A/c No.6125. The document however remains with the bank. The complainant filed a suit OS No.692 of 2002 for recovery of the said documents and the said suit was subsequently dismissed as infructuous, as the documents were returned as they were required no longer. In the charge sheet, it is stated that the Sub- Inspector of Police-LW.4 examined the Chief Manager-LW.3 and in the statement, LW.3 stated that during the pendency of the suit, A.1 got the over draft account renewed for which the property of Bimala Bhatia-LW.2-mother of LW.1 Rajesh Bhatia, was not taken as security for the second loan A/c No.6187. The question of petitioners-A.1 and A.3 dishonestly keeping the title deeds of the complainant’s mother by way of security for the second loan without the knowledge of the complainant does not arise. The element of cheating or criminal breach of trust is totally absent when once it is admitted that the title deeds of the complainant’s mother were never taken as security for the second loan vide A/c No.6187. It remains only a case where the title deeds of the complainant’s mother given as security for the first loan vide A/c No.6125 were not taken back after closure of the said account. Mere failure to take back the documents or failure to deliver documents to the complainant and his mother after closure of the A/c No.6125 does not attract the ingredients of the alleged offences. The allegation of the complainant that without his knowledge the accused continued the security for the second loan A/c No.6187 also by not releasing the documents, which were pledged in connection with the first loan vide A/c No.6125, lacks any credibility in view of the statement of the Chief Manager-LW.3 that the said documents were not taken as security for the second loan vide A/c No.6187. 6. Further allegation that the accused made false statements before the court in the counter and written statement filed in OS No.692 of 2002 to the effect that the security by way of pledge of the documents still remains in force, does not attract the ingredients of the alleged offences. The continuance of further proceedings in CC No.777 of 2008 against the petitioners-A.1 and A.3 for the above alleged offences, certainly would amount to abuse of process of law, as the ingredients of the alleged offences are not attracted even prima-facie. In the circumstances, it is considered fit case where further proceedings against the petitioners-A.1 and A.3 in CC No.777 of 2008 can be quashed by invoking inherent powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. and they are accordingly quashed. 7. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed. G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 24.11.2011 bss