THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY Crl.P.No.5786/2006 Dt,15-7-2010 Reji K. Varghese ..Petitioner/A-5 V. 1. State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and another. ..Respondents The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY Crl.P.No.5786/2006 ORAL ORDER This is an application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner in CC No.659/1996 pending on the file of VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The petitioner is arrayed as A-5 in the charge sheet filed for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 409, 477 and 420 IPC and r/w section 58-B (5A) read with Sec. 45-S of the Reserve Bank of India Act. The charge sheet filed by the police discloses that A-2, Sajan K. Varghees, who floated the firm in the name and style of “Oriental Finance & Exchange Company” and got registered with the Registrar of Firms, Trivandrum, Kerala State, issued advertisements in newspapers offering exorbitant interest on the deposits. Apart from collecting deposits in the name of A-1, A-2 also collected deposits in the name of the following concerns, namely, The Oriental Finance Exchange Company; The Oriental Finance Exchange Company; The Oriental Financiers and Exchange Company; Oriental Finance Exchange Company; Oriental Finances and Exchange Company; Oriental Financiers and Exchange Company; The Oriental Financiers Exchange Company and The Oriental Finances, Mutual Fund Ltd., mentioning the administrative office at Madras. Though the Registered Office of A-1 firm was at Kottayam, the administrative office was shifted to Madras. Shifting of administrative office to Madras was not registered and there was no notice to the Registrar of Firms, Trivandrum regarding change of principal office of A-1 firm. Hyderabad Branch issued advertisement in Deccan Chronicle dt. 15-5-1986, and in Hindu dt. 1-9-1986 and 25-12-1986 and induced the public by luring promises of returns without mentioning the location of the registered office of A-1 firm, and cheated the public. From a perusal of the entire charge-sheet, it is evident that A-1 and A-2 alleged to have cheated the depositors by receiving the amount but there is no specific allegation against A-5. When insolvency petition was filed before Additional Sub-Judge, Kottayam, the official liquidator was appointed in the said insolvency proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on 27-2-2007, submitted that pursuant to the directions given by the Supreme Court, the properties of the company were brought to sale by the Official Liquidator in insolvency proceedings and that 50% of the amounts were paid to almost all the depositors and further agreed to pay 25% of the amount in due course of time. The same was recorded by this court. In the additional affidavit dt. 9-7-2007 filed by the petitioner, it is stated that entire payments were paid to the complainants and witnesses 10,11 and 12 in CC No.659/1996 on the file of VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court Hyderabad. Along with the said affidavit, the learned counsel for the petitioner also filed separate affidavits of witnesses 10,11 and 12 in CC No.659/1996 stating that they have no grievance against the firm and its partners and they have no objection in dropping the criminal proceedings against the company and the partners of the firm. The Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal Nos.127-143 of 1999 dt. 17- 11-2005 held that since the offence said to have been committed by the appellants including the petitioner herein, as far back as in 1987 in CC No. 659/1996 and the appellants/accused have paid back to the complainants the entire deposited amount, it is a fit case to allow the compounding of the offences, and accordingly offences are compounded. The Supreme Court further held that the proceedings pending before the different courts shall stand terminated, which includes the proceedings in CC No.659/1996 also. In view of the same, the benefit of which should have been extended to the petitioner also. Having regard to the above facts and since the offence said to have been committed as far back as in 1987; accused have paid back to the complainants’ entire deposited amount; and the complainants filed affidavits stating that they have to objection in dropping the criminal proceedings against the company and the partners of the firm, we consider it fit to allow the compounding of the offences and the offences are compounded accordingly. The Criminal Petition is accordingly allowed discharging the petitioner-A-5 of the charges levelled against him in CC No.659/1996 on the file of VI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. ______________ A.GOPAL REDDY,J Dt.15-7-2010 kmr