HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALAKRISHNA TAMADA CRL.P.No.6406 of 2007 ORDER: Petitioners are Accused Nos.3 to 11 of offence punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C in C.C.No.727 of 2003 on the file of the Court of IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kakinada, and they seek quashing of the said proceedings. Brief facts of the case are that one Sathi Venkata Ramana Reddy (A-1) and his wife Sathi Ramasree (A-2), who are residents of Velamala Turangi village of Kakinada Rural Mandal, with an intention to cheat the innocent public and to extract huge amounts from them, started a Chit Fund business without having any valid licence and made the residents of the said village and surrounding places as members of various chits and thereby collected an amount of Rs.5,43,000/-. Since the accused Nos.1 and 2 failed to pay the chit amounts to the depositors, a case in Crime No.93 of 2001 of Indrapalem Police Station, East Godavari District, was registered against them for the offences punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C. and Section 56 of A.P. Chit Funds Act and Section 4 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme Act, on 07.08.2001. After completion of investigation, the police filed charge sheet under Section 420 of I.P.C. and the same was numbered as C.C.No.728 of 2003, renumbered as C.C.No.8 of 2009 on the file of the Special Mobile Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kakinada. It is further stated that the said Sathi Venkata Ramana Reddy (A-1) and his wife Sathi Ramasree (A-2) with their sweet words attracted the residents of the said village and surrounding places and made them as members of various chits and informed to the people of the locality that the petitioniers-A-3 to A-11 herein are their relatives and their business is a joint business and thereby collected an amount of Rs.53,91,483/-. Since the accused failed to pay the chit amounts to the depositors, a case in Crime No.98 of 2001 of Indrapalem Police Station, East Godavari District, was registered against A1, A2 and the petitioners herein for the offences punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C. and Section 56 of A.P. Chit Funds Act and Sections 3 and 4 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes Act read with Section 34 of I.P.C., on 15.08.2001. After completion of investigation, the police filed charge sheet under Section 420 of I.P.C. and the same was numbered as C.C.No.727 of 2003 on the file of the IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kakinada. The trial Court tried the case of the said Sathi Venkata Ramana Reddy (A1) and his wife- Ramasree (A2) in C.C.No.8 of 2009 and on appraisal of entire evidence, both oral and documentary, held that the prosecution has proved the offence under Section 420 of I.P.C. against the said accused and accordingly convicted and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. As stated supra, the petitioners-A3 to A11 herein filed the present petition seeking quashing of the proceedings in C.C.No.727 of 2003. Heard both sides. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners herein have nothing to do with the alleged business of Sathi Venkata Ramana Reddy (A1) and his wife-Ramasree (A2). He further submits that the allegations, as per the complaint and charge sheet, are only against the said Sathi Venkata Ramana Reddy (A1) and his wife-Ramasree (A2) and that no specific role is attributed to the petitioners-A3 to A11 herein and as such continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners herein amounts to abuse of process of law. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent, submits that the allegations in the charge sheet show prima facie case against the petitioiners-A3 to A11 herein and hence they can as well be tried for the offence leveled against them and ultimately the trial Court has to decide the same. From a reading of the charge sheet, it is clear that the said Sathi Venkata Ramana Reddy (A1) and his wife-Ramasree (A2) made the villagers of Velamala Toorangi and its surrounding places as members of various chits and thereby collected an amount of Rs.53,91,483/- from them. No doubt, it is true that the charge sheet was also filed against the petitioners herein. But what is to be seen is as to what is the allegation made against the petitioners herein. As stated supra, originally with the very same allegations a complaint was lodged against the said Sathi Venkata Ramana Reddy (A1) and his wife-Ramasree (A2) and the same was registered as a case in Crime No.93 of 2001 and after investigation, police filed charge sheet against A1 and A2 for the offence punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C. and the same was numbered as C.C.No.8 of 2009 and the trial Court after trial convicted and sentenced the said A1 and A2 as stated supra. Of course, the petitioners herein and the said Sathi Venkata Ramana reddy (A1) and his wife-Ramasree (A2) were also shown as accused in the present C.C.No.727 of 2003. Except a bald allegation that A1 and A2 collected an amount of Rs.53,91,483/- from the subscribers by informing them that the petitioniers-A-3 to A-11 herein are their relatives and their business is a joint business, no specific role is attributed to the petitioners herein. Even in the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., no role is attributed to the petitioners herein. There is no allegation that any amount is paid to the petitioners herein at any point of time. From a perusal of the charge sheet and the statements of the witnesses, this Court is of the considered view that the main allegations are only against the said Sathi Venkata Ramana Reddy (A1) and his wife-Ramasree (A2), but not against the petitioners herein. When there are two cases i.e., C.C.No.8 of 2009 and C.C.No.727 of 2003 (present case on hand) with the very same allegations, the trial court ought to have tried both the cases and decided the same. But for obvious reasons may be due to inadvertence etc., the trial court had tried only C.C.No.8 of 2009 and found the said Sathi Venkata Ramana Reddy (A1) and his wife-Ramasree (A2) guilty of the offence punishable under section 420 of I.P.C. In the light of aforesaid discussion and as there are no specific allegations against the petitioners-A3 to A11 herein, this Court is of the view that the petitioners herein need not face trial in C.C.No.727 of 2003 and the continuation of the said proceedings against the petitioners herein are nothing but an abuse of process of the Court. The Criminal Petition is accordingly allowed and the proceedings initiated in C.C.No.727 of 2003 on the file of the Court of IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kakinada, are hereby quashed in so far as the petitioners-A3 to A11 are concerned. ________________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J) 28.06.2010 Gsn.