HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.7696 of 2009 Dated : 22.09.2009 Between : Shaik Shamshad Begum ….. Petitioner a n d The State of A.P. & another ….. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.7696 of 2009 ORDER: Heard Sri S.Venkata Subba Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri A.Ramesh, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor for the first respondent. No notice is being ordered to the second respondent as the matter is being disposed of at the stage of admission. P.R.C.No.20 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Atmakur, Kurnool District, against the petitioner is in respect of an alleged offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5 of A.P. Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act. The allegation against the petitioner is that he was running a chit without any licence or registration and in connection with the same, the petitioner failed to repay Rs.1,60,000/- to the defacto complainant/the second respondent herein in spite of demands and on a report of the second respondent, the crime was registered and investigated into. The copy of the charge sheet shows that apart from the second respondent, two others were also cited as witnesses to the allegations made against the petitioner. It is true that the copies of the statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the said two witnesses are also to the effect that the second respondent gave Rs.1 lakh to the petitioner as loan, which was not repaid in spite of demands. Obviously the said money, which the petitioner had to pay, was in connection with the second respondent lifting two chits. Whether the conduct of the petitioner in connection with the transaction contained elements of an offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and whether such conduct would attract elements of Section 5 of A.P. Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, are questions, which have to be established during the trial before the trial Court and cannot be determined in a restricted summary enquiry under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If the chits were run without licence and registration and the liability was incurred in connection with such transaction as alleged, it cannot be said that even prima facie there is no ground to proceed against the petitioner. As such disputed questions of fact cannot be determined by this Court in exercise of inherent jurisdiction and as the facts do not disclose that the prosecution is untenable, irrespective of the contention that civil liability is also involved in the transaction, the criminal petition is dismissed. But, it is made clear that no observation made in this order shall influence the determination of P.R.C.No.20 of 2009 on merits in accordance with law. ______________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J 22nd September, 2009 SUR