HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.15 OF 2010 DATE: 24.08.2010 Between: Vishnudas Gilda and another …… Petitioners. And: The State of AP., rep. by PP, High Court of AP., Hyderabad and another …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.15 OF 2010 ORDER: 1. The petitioners 1 and 2/A-1 and A-2 are accused of offences punishable under Sections 406, 418, 420, 452, 506 IPC in Crime No.341 of 2009 of Central Crime Station (East Zone Team), Hyderabad. Private complaint filed by the 2nd respondent was referred by the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad to the police for investigation and report under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. It is contended that the accused who did business with the 2nd respondent who is a broker became liable to pay Rs.43,91,328/- to the 2nd respondent and that inspite of demands A-1 and A-2 did not pay the said amount and expressed their intention not to pay the same as gathered by the 2nd respondent. It is further alleged that on 07.11.2009 A-1 and A-2 along with five or six antisocial elements forcibly trespassed into house of the 2nd respondent, caught hold of him and also his son and threatened them that they will have to face dire consequences in case demanded amount is not paid and that they also demanded the 2nd respondent to return C.D (Compact Disc) containing recording of conversation between the 2nd respondent and A-1 and that when the 2nd respondent refused for the same, the accused and others tried to ransack house of the 2nd respondent and also caused physical injuries to the 2nd respondent and his son and that when neighbours interfered, the said persons went away after hurling threats of dire consequences. 2. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that the 2nd respondent in the complaint did not cite any witnesses and did not produce any documents before the lower court in support of his claim for such huge amount. As can be seen from contents of the complaint, the 2nd respondent and his son are main witnesses and his neighbours are also witnesses for the incident which is stated to have occurred on 07.11.2009. Truth or otherwise of the said incident cannot be gone into and decided in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C as it is a question of fact. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that it is a frivolous and vexatious complaint and that the lower court should have applied mind before forwarding the same to the police. If the incident which is stated to have occurred on 07.11.2009 is true, it cannot be said that this is a frivolous complaint. It is for the police to investigate and find out truth of the incident which occurred on 07.11.2009. In so far as offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 IPC are concerned, the petitioner has not filed any documents in support of his claim for Rs.43,00,000/- and odd. It is for the investigating officer to collect supporting documents from the 2nd respondent and to come to the conclusion whether the 2nd respondent’s claim is correct or not. Even if the claim s correct, it may not lead to offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC unless the requisite dishonest or fraudulent intention is gathered by the investigating officer during investigation. This is not a case similar to the one in Indumati M. Shah v. Narendra Muljibhai Asra[1] of the Gujarat High Court where the complainant wanted to fish out evidence from the accused through C.B.I investigation by way of searching premises of the accused and securing documents from the accused in support of the complainant’s allegations. 3. Thus, on considering material on record, I do not find any valid or legal reasons to quash FIR in this case. 4. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. ___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J August 24, 2010 Gk. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.15 OF 2010 Date: 24.08.2010 Gk. [1] 1995 CRI.L.J.918