HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.7433 of 2008 Date : 28.09.2011 Between : Shanavas. M.P. & another. …..Petitioners And The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by Public Prosecutor & another. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.7433 of 2008 ORDER : This Criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to quash F.I.R.No.861 of 2008 registered on the file of P.S.Panjagutta. The aforesaid crime is registered against the petitioners on the complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent. In the complaint, dated 27.09.2008, filed by the 2nd respondent, it is alleged that he has invested an amount of Rs.25 lakhs in the petitioners’ Company on the assurance that they will repay a minimum amount of Rs.10,000/- per month after 90 days onwards for a period of three years. It is stated that the said deposits are accepted by the petitioners for the purpose of manufacturing and marketing cash shopping machines. In the complaint, it is alleged that after paying the amounts as assured, for two months, the petitioners’ company has stopped payment and their offices were also closed in several places at Erode, Salem, Namakkal, Coimbattore, Nyveli, Madurai, Kerala, Maharashtra, Bangalore, Calcutta etc. As the petitioners have failed to pay interest as assured, complainant alleges that the petitioners have cheated him. In view of the said complaint, a crime is registered against the petitioners. At the stage of admission, this Court granted interim orders on 15.11.2008, staying all further proceedings in the aforesaid crime. In this criminal petition, it is contended by the learned counsel for petitioners that the petitioners’ Company is engaged in the business of health care services like promotion of medical cards, health cards, health insurance cards, electronic patient record cards etc., and the 2nd respondent/de-facto complainant has purchased e-vouchers from the said Company and given to many other customers and he has also received loyalty revenue from the Company. It is further submitted that when the de-facto complainant, for the reasons best known to him, expressed to discontinue his services and withdraw to act as a distributor, and in the said process, when he demanded huge amounts, the same is not acceded to by the petitioners, and in that view of the matter, a false complaint is made. It is also contended that the complaint is vague and no particulars of payment are given in the complaint. It is well settled that for the purpose of quashing the proceedings, it has to be seen as to whether a prima facie case is made out for the alleged offence or not, on looking at the contents of the complaint. When it is alleged against the petitioners that the 2nd respondent has deposited an amount of Rs.25 lakhs with the petitioners’ Company on the assurance given by them that they will return a minimum of 10% on the lumpsum deposits made by the 2nd respondent, and thereafter, they discontinued such payment, it is a matter for investigation by the Police. If the said contents of complaint are taken as true, they constitute an offence under Section 420 of IPC. In that view of the matter, whether sufficient material is placed on record or not, cannot be the factor, which has to be considered at this stage, to quash the very First Information Report. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to accept the plea of petitioners to quash the proceedings. However, it is to be noticed that this Court granted interim orders as early as on 15th November 2008, and as it is further submitted that the investigation is not yet completed, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this petition with a direction to the 1st respondent to complete the investigation as expeditiously as possible and the petitioners shall not be arrested till appropriate final report is filed on the complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent. It is also made clear that after filing of final report, it is open for the 1st respondent to take further steps in accordance with law. The Criminal Petition is disposed of, with the directions referred above. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 28th September 2011 ajr