IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.1749 of 2007 DATE:10.06.2010 Between: Chapperla Gopala Murali Krishna …… Petitioner/Accused. And: The State of A.P. rep. By Public Prosecutor and Another. …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.1749 of 2007 ORDER: The petitioner is accused of offence punishable under Section 420 I.P.C in C.C.No.704 of 2005 on the file of III Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. The said Court must have been re- constituted as one of the Chief Metropolitan Courts at Vijayawada. The 2nd respondent is the defacto-complainant who filed private complaint in the lower Court and it was referred to the police for investigation and report under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. After investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the accused in the lower Court. It is alleged that the accused was running Sri Auto Services as proprietor and that on making false representation to include the 2nd respondent as a partner in Sri Auto Services, the petitioner obtained huge sum of Rs.25,50,000/- from the 2nd respondent on various dates set out in the charge sheet by way of cash and also by way of cheques and that after receipt of Rs.25,50,000/- as share capital amount from the 2nd respondent, the accused did not execute partnership deed and postponed execution of the same to a short period and that the accused also paid Rs.50,000/- to the 2nd respondent on 30.09.2004 as profit to his share in the firm and that when the 2nd respondent gave pressure to execute partnership deed the accused bluntly refused to execute the same and categorically stated that there was no need to execute the same and that the accused cheated the 2nd respondent to the tune of Rs.25,50,000/-. 2) The petitioner’s counsel contends that the 2nd respondent came up with a false case without making any payment except Rs.1,86,000/- towards loan. Along with the private complaint, the 2nd respondent filed a letter issued by the petitioner and his wife acknowledging Rs.15,00,000/- in the name of Sri Auto Services. The petitioner contends that the said document was fabricated on a blank paper containing signatures of the petitioner and his wife. Thus entire contentions of the petitioner are based on disputed questions of fact. This Court in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C cannot go into and decide the same. It is for the trial Court to decide the same after both the parties let in their respective oral and documentary evidence. At this point, it may be noted that though the 2nd respondent impleaded wife of the petitioner as one of the accused in his private complaint, after investigation, the police deleted name of wife of the accused from the case, perhaps on the ground that she has nothing to do with Sri Auto Services which is being run by the petitioner as proprietor. 3) Hence, the petition is dismissed. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J June 10, 2010 KSH