HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Criminal Petition No.4827 of 2009 ORDER: This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing further proceedings against the petitioner-A.6 in CC No.77 of 2009 on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Rajahmundry. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The 2nd respondent herein filed a private complaint against the petitioner and others before the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Rajahmundry, alleging the offences under sections 384, 420, 506(2) read with 34 IPC and the same was forwarded to the police under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation and report and thereupon, police registered FIR in Cr.No.406 of 2008 and after investigation, filed charge sheet against all the accused, including the petitioner-A.6 herein. 4. The petitioner is working as Development Officer in Life Insurance Corporation of India, Prathipadu branch. According to the complainant, her husband, who was working as LIC agent, died in a road accident on 26.03.2007 and by then he was having four LIC policies to a tune of Rs.12 lakhs. She alleges that even after the marriage, her husband has not changed the nomination in her favour and continued his mother-A.1 as nominee for the said policies and taking advantage of the same, A.1 has taken away the amounts due under the policies. It is further alleged that being legal heir of her deceased husband, she is entitled for ½ share in the said amounts and she raised a dispute before the elders- LWs.3 to 7 and in pursuance of the said mediation, A.1 agreed to pay Rs.5.5 lakhs and executed an agreement on 06.05.2007 assuring that she would pay the said amount soon after receipt of the maturity amount from the LIC. The complainant alleges that on 31.07.2007, A.1 received the amount from the LIC to a tune of Rs.10,09,818/- but did not however pay the agreed amount to the complainant at the instigation of A.2 to A.6. 5. It is not disputed that the complainant filed suit OS No.585 of 2007 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry for partition and allotment of half share of the amount in her favour and interim injunction was also granted in IA No.1164 of 2007 restraining the petitioner and other accused from withdrawing the money. She further alleges that while the suit was pending, A.1 encashed the policy amounts on 31.07.2007 without informing the same to the complainant, with a view to avoid payment of her half share. 6. A perusal of the complaint and charge sheet would disclose that the grouse of the complainant is mainly against her mother-in-law-A.1 and other relatives A.2 to A.5. The petitioner-A.6 is a stranger to the family and he is working as Development Officer in LIC. Even according to the complainant, her mother-in- law-A.1 continued to be the nominee in respect of the policies even after the marriage of the complainant. Thus, the petitioner- A.6 is said to have released the amount covered by the four policies in favour of the nominee only i.e., A.1, but not to any unauthorized person. When the petitioner-A.6 has acted in accordance with the nomination form submitted by the complainant’s husband and the amount was ultimately released in favour of the nominee i.e., A.1, it cannot be said that the petitioner- A.6 has committed any offence. The only allegation against the petitioner-A.6 is that he acted in collusion with other accused. There is absolutely no allegation to the effect that A.6 has in any way got benefited under the transaction nor is there any material in support of the alleged collusion of the petitioner-A.6 with other accused. If the petitioner-A.6 has acted in violation of any order of injunction granted by the Court in IA No.1164 of 2007, it is open to the complainant to avail other civil remedies available under law as against the petitioner-A.6. As the averments in the complaint and the charge sheet do not contain any specific allegations against the petitioner-A.6 attracting the ingredients of the alleged offence even prima-facie, it is considered that continuance of further proceedings against the petitioner-A.6 based on the vague allegation of collusion is unwarranted, especially, when even as per the averments in the complaint the petitioner-A.6 has acted only in accordance with the nomination form and released the amount in favour of the nominee i.e., A.1. 7. In the circumstances, it is considered a fit case where further proceedings against the petitioner-A.6 in CC No.77 of 2009 on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Rajahmundry, are liable to be quashed by invoking the inherent powers of the Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. and accordingly they are quashed. The proceedings against other accused shall however go on. 8. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 24.11.2011 bss