HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.6619 of 2004 Between: R.Lakshmipathi Setty … Petitioner And The State of A.P., through by its Public Prosecutor and another … Respondents This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.6619 of 2004 ORDER:- This is a petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners in C.C.No.252 of 2007 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 504 and 506 r/w 149 IPC, whereby the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad took cognizance of the case against A1 for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC and against A2 to A6 for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 149 IPC. The allegations made in the complaint clearly discloses that the complainant, who is a film production unit, availed the loans from accused No.1 financier in the year 2001 and in the process issued three cheques and blank promissory note as security to the amounts lent by accused No.1 firm for production of a film named “Chinna”. As per the trade practice in the film field, the prints and negatives of the film will be deposited in the laboratory and will be released only on repayment of the amounts payable to the financiers and on giving no objection letter for such release. Accused No.1 has also got a right over the film to stall the release, in case the payments are not made before release of the film. The complainant has repaid the amount to accused No.1 and his associates and on receipt of the same, they have given no objection letter to M/s.RamaNaidu Film Laboratories on 25.05.2001 and later the film was released on 26.05.2001. After receipt of the amounts when the complainant requested for return of three cheques and the blank promissory note executed by him, accused No.1 informed them that the same were misplaced and that they will be delivered in the due course as and when they were traced. Meanwhile accused Nos.1 and 2 filled the said cheques, presented the same and withdrawn an amount of Rs.8,65,000/-. Accused Nos.1 and 2 in collusion with accused Nos.3 to 6 are further claiming Rs.61,00,000/- from the complainant and claiming so, on 26.07.2005 all the accused along with four unsocial elements visited the office of the complainant and abused the Manager and other staff of the complainant and intimidated them with dire consequences demanding to pay the amount of Rs.61,00,000/-, though the complainant is not liable to pay, and warned the complainant with dire consequences. On filing of the above complaint before the Magistrate, one M.Madhusudhana Rao, General Manager of Dasrai Mass Media was examined and his sworn statement has been recorded, wherein, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, he has stated about borrowing of the amount from accused No.1 and discharging of the debt, but subsequently the said cheques were presented with a dishonest intention and withdrawn an amount of Rs.8,65,000/- and further demanding Rs.61,00,000/- and that accused No.1 came to the office on 25.07.2005 and threatened with dire consequences. The sworn statement of the accountant also corroborates the same that on 25.07.2005 at 06.30 P.M. to 7.00 P.M., A1 to A6 went to the office at Plot No.900, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad and disputed with the complainant for payment of the amount to the accused. Then they stated that they know how to collect the amount by making galata and telephoned to the Jubilee Hills Police Station and lodged a complaint to the police. On recording the sworn statements, the Magistrate took the same into the cognizance, which is now sought to be quashed. Sri V.Raghunath, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that when the cheques were issued on 25.05.2001 and the galata was made on 21.07.2005, there was no inducement or dishonest intention on the date when the cheques were issued by the complainant to attract Section 420 IPC. For due recovery of the amounts due by the complainant when four suits namely O.S.Nos.9 of 2005, 10 to 12 of 2006 were filed for various amounts, as a counter blast to the said suits, the complainant lodged the present complaint to take vengeance against the accused. Therefore, the case falls under illustrations (1), (3), (5) and (7) enumerated by the Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (AIR 1992 SC 604). He further contends that the cross- examination of D.W.1-Dasari Narayana Rao in O.S.No.12 of 2006, discloses that he issued the cheques in the month of November. Therefore, the present complaint filed by the complainant cannot be entertained and the same is liable o be quashed. Per contra, Sri C.Padmanabha Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents contends that when the cheques were issued for security of the amount which were not returned with a dishonest intention and later withdrawn the amounts, which clearly is an offence punishable under Section 415 IPC, for which they are liable to be prosecuted under Section 420 IPC. The complaint allegations particularly Para 9 clearly shows that all the accused went to the complainant office and threatened him with dire consequences and made galata, which clearly attracts the offence under Section 506 IPC. While considering the quashing of the proceedings, this Court has to consider only material on record as a whole and the allegations made in the F.I.R. that the petitioners fulfills the ingredients of the offence alleged against them and the possible defences of the accused cannot be taken into consideration for quashing the proceedings. In support of the same, reliance is placed on Mahesh Chowdary v. State of Rajasthan {2009(4) SCC 439}. It is now fairly well settled that the High Court in exercise of the jurisdiction to quash the proceedings has to consider the allegations made in the complaint and the allegations made therein constitute any offence or not. It is not disputed that Section 420 IPC is a cognizable offence. The complaint allegations clearly goes to show that the cheques and promissory note were given as a security to the loan borrowed, which were subsequently filled up; and that the loan was repaid, but the same have not been returned and used for withdrawing the amount and that all the accused visited the office of the complainant on 25.07.2005 and threatened with dire consequences. The said allegations clearly attract the provisions of the offences with which the accused were charged. Therefore, I do not see any merit in the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the above complaint has been lodged to take vengeance on the accused filing the civil suits. The complaint as such was lodged on 21.07.2005, whereas O.S.No.9 of 2005 is filed in October, 2005 O.S.Nos.10 to 12 of 2006 in July 2006 i.e., subsequent to the filing of the complaint and after taking cognizance of the alleged offences. In view of the same, I do not see any ground to quash the proceedings. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J 12th August 2010 lmv