HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.10973 of 2009 O R D E R: The petitioners 1 to 3/A.2 to A.4 are accused of offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471/34 IPC along with another. Subject matter of the case is the alleged non-giving of incentives as advertised by Silverline Investment, Chennai for the deposit of Rs.7,00,000/- made by the complainant/2nd respondent. The Magistrate forwarded the complaint to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. After investigation, the police filed final report referring the case as civil nature. Thereupon, the 2nd respondent filed protest petition on which the lower Court enquired. During enquiry of the protest petition by the Magistrate, the complainant/2nd respondent did not give his sworn statement. Two witnesses gave sworn statement before the Magistrate. In the lower Court, a chief examination affidavit is filed on behalf of the complainant. Filing of chief examination affidavit is not equivalent to giving sworn statement before the Magistrate. This is not a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for giving sworn statement by way of an affidavit. It is alleged in the sworn statements of the witnesses of the complainant that the complainant deposited Rs.7,00,000/- in Shriram Chits Company and that the accused promised to give a gift car and on that promise, Rs.7,00,000/- was deposited in that company and that the accused did not give promised car and cheated the complainant. The deposit was not made in Shriram Chits Company. The deposit of Rs.7,00,000/- was made by the complainant in Silver Line Investments, Chennai. It is stated to be a sister concern of Shriram Chits Limited. There is no dispute about the complainant making deposit of Rs.7,00,000/- with that company. The relevant incentives offered by the company as per the letter addressed to Zonal heads of Shriram Chits are as follows: “All the members of Shriforce who contribute 2 lacs for the period 1st January to 31st March, 2005 in cumulative schemes of Subhiska & Shriraksha will be eligible for MOBILE PHONE. All the members of Shriforce who contribute 5 lacs for the period 1st January to 31st March 2005 in cumulative schemes of Subhiska & Shriraksha will be eligible for 10 GRAMS GOLD COIN. The top three performers in each state will be eligible for I. Hero Honda Splendor Plus II. 5 Sovereign Gold Chain III. Digital Handy Cam SUPERSTAR in Southern Region will drive home on ALTO”. The above contents of the letter were stated to have been published by the company by advertisement also. It shows that members who contribute Rs.2,00,000/- in cumulative schemes will be eligible for Mobile Phone and that the members who contribute Rs.5,00,000/- in cumulative schemes will be eligible for 10 grams of gold coin. The top three performers in the State will be eligible for Hero Honda Splendor Plus, 5 sovereign gold chain and Digital Handy Cam respectively. These three incentives are not for members of the scheme, but for top performers in each State. The top performers are selected from out of the Zonal heads of Shriram Chits Limited in Andhra Pradesh. The company never advertised any incentive to the members by way of Hero Honda Splendor Plus, 5 sovereign gold chain or Digital Handy Cam. Similarly, the company did not offer any ALTO Car to any member in the advertisement. If the complainant thought that there was any offer by the company to any member about ALTO Car or Hero Honda Splendor Plus or 5 sovereign gold chain or Digital Handy Cam, then it is only his misapprehension. As can be seen from the sworn statements given before the Magistrate, the grievance of the complainant who did not come before the Magistrate, is that he was not given gift of a Car for deposit of Rs.7,00,000/-. Perhaps the complainant was dreaming for a Car which is not announced to members by the company. There is nothing in the sworn statements to the effect that the incentives offered to the members were not given to the complainant. Admittedly the company sent Rs.9,000/- by way of demand draft/cheque towards his incentive. Grievance of the complainant is only imaginary. For his imaginary evidence, the complainant wants to harass Vice President of Silverline Investments, Director and Chairman of Shriram Chits and Finance and Silverline Investment by way of impleading them as A.2 to A.4 in the criminal case. This is nothing short of abuse of process of criminal law, which cannot be permitted. There is no concealment of facts by the company as laid down in Iridium India Telecom Ltd. v Motorola Incorporated[1]. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing proceedings in C.C.No.220 of 2008 on the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kothagudem. ________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J Dt. 16th December, 2011. PNV [1] 2011(1) ALD (Crl.) 591 (SC)