IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA CRIMINAL PETITION No.3054 of 2008 Between: Kuncham Mohana Rao ..... PETITIONER AND State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Public Prosecutor High Court of A.P. Hyderabad and another .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA CRIMINAL PETITION No.3054 of 2008 O R D E R: The petitioner has filed this criminal petition under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the FIR No.85/2007 dated 17.03.2007, registered at Law & Order Police Station II Town, Vijayawada under Secs.420 and 506 of IPC. The brief facts of the cased are that the 2nd respondent herein filed the complaint against the petitioner and two others on 17.03.2007 before the Sub-Inspector of Police, Law & Order Police Station II Town, Vijayawada, wherein it was averred that he is doing business in Prakash Market, Shop No.58, under the name and style of Malleswara Textile Agencies; that prior to one month of the complaint one Chintalapudi Rangarao came to his shop and placed an order for sarees; that he gave sarees worth of Rs.3,68,315/- on credit, as the said Chintalapudi Rangarao promised him to pay the entire amount within 10 or 15 days; that on 17th March, 2007 the 2nd respondent/complainant went to the house of Chintalapudi Rangarao and requested him to pay the entire amount for the sarees taken by him; that the said Chintalapudi Rangarao and his wife Chintalapudi Ratnakumari both told him that they would not pay any amount, and on the other hand, threatened him with dire consequences. It has also been alleged in the complaint that the 2nd respondent/complainant has been cheated by Chintalapudi Rangarao and his wife Chintalapudi Ratnakumari with the assistance of their friend Kunchamu Rama Mohanarao, who is the present petitioner. It has also been mentioned in the complaint that the said Chintalapudi Rangarao is trying to file IP with the assistance of Kunchamu Rama Mohanarao, the petitioner herein, by keeping and transferring the entire property in the name of his wife Chintalapudi Ratnakumari. On the basis of the aforementioned complaint, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Law & Order P.S. II Town Vijayawada, registered a case in FIR No.85/2007 dated 17.03.2007 under Sec.420 and 506 of IPC. The present quash petition has been filed by the petitioner, who was shown as Accused No.3 in the FIR. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petitioner/Accused No.3 has nothing to do with the entire transaction held between the 2nd respondent/complainant and Chintalapudi Rangarao and his wife Chintalapudi Ratnakumari, and therefore, he cannot be made to face the trial, and hence the FIR is liable to be quashed against him. It is further contended that the petitioner herein never took any sarees on credit from the 2nd respondent/complainant. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State i.e. the 1st respondent, however, submits that there are specific allegations in the FIR against the petitioner that he had assisted Chintalapudi Rangarao/Accused No.1 in playing fraud upon the 2nd respondent/complainant, and hence, the FIR is not liable to be quashed at the threshold, as the role of the petitioner herein is yet to be ascertained. After hearing the counsel for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that there are allegations against the petitioner also in the FIR that he is alleged to have assisted Chintalapudi Rangarao/Accused No.1 in playing fraud upon the 2nd respondent/complainant and in threatening him with dire consequences. The exact nature of the assistance or fraud played by the petitioner is to be ascertained only during course of trial. In view of the above, I find no valid or justifiable grounds to invoke the inherent powers of this Court under Sec.482 of Cr.P.C to quash the FIR No.85/2007 dated 17.03.2007, registered at Law & Order Police Station II Town, Vijayawada, and hence the Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed. The Criminal Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. ______________________ ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA,J Dated: 28.09.2011 Dsr