HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU CRL.PETITION NO.5758 OF 2006 Date: 17.11.2009 Between: Kurapapti Srinivasa Rao …..Petitioner And: The State of A.P., rep. By its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P and another …..Respondents. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU CRL.PETITION NO.5758 OF 2006 ORDER: This petition is filed by the 2nd accused (A-2) under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing registration of the First Information Report in Crime No.126 of 2006 of Bapatla Town Police Station for the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The 2nd respondent filed the private complaint against A-1 and the petitioner (A-2) in the Court of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Bapatla alleging the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code against both of them. The Magistrate forwarded the private complaint to Bapatla Town Police Station for registration of the same and for final report after investigation. Thereupon the Station House Officer, Bapatla Town Police Station registered the private complaint as case in Crime No.126 of 2006 and issued the First Information Report. The complainant is running Satyanarayana Kalamandir, Addanki and other Cinema Halls for exhibition of movies at various places. A-1 is doing film distribution business under the name and style M/s. Omkar Film Distributors, Vijayawada. A-2 is an exhibitor running Srinivasa Mahal at Bapatla as lessee thereof. A-1 exhibited ‘Tagore’ film in Satyanarayana Kalamandir, Addanki, which film was given to him by A-1. As per the agreement between the complainant and A-1, the complainant paid Rs.4,25,000/- towards the advance amount for the film to A-1 with a minimum guarantee of Rs.3,75,000/- to be given by the complainant. Daily rent for the cinema hall payable by A-1 to the complainant was Rs.3,900/-. The amount has to be settled out of the gross collections. The said movie was exhibited in the complainant’s cinema hall for 50 days. Thereafter the accounts were settled. The total income came to Rs.3,60,000/- for 50 days. The loss sustained by A-1 was Rs.15,000/- out of minimum guantee amount of Rs.3,75,000/-. The complainant had to bear the same. The said movie was exhibited for a further period of 50 days and the total amount received was Rs.1,60,000/- whereas rent to be paid was Rs.1,95,000/-. Thus there was deficit of Rs.35,000/- to be paid by A-1 to the complainant. In Vijayakrishna Theatre, the complainant exhibited Garshna movie and paid Rs.1,00,000/- as an advance. After exhibition, the complainant released only Rs.75,000/- leaving deficit of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant. According to the complainant A-1 was due a total sum of Rs.1,10,000/- by way of deficit of Rs.50,000/- towards advance for Tagore movie, Rs.35,000/- towards deficit of rent for the same movie and Rs.25,000/- being deficit of advance relating to Garshna movie. It is alleged that in those circumstances A-1 agreed to give another movie Sankardada M.B.Bs., to the complainant with the advance of Rs.2,00,000/- and minimum guarantee of Rs.1,10,000/-. It is further alleged that at the request of A-1, the complainant paid Rs.20,000/- + Rs.20,000/- + Rs.5,000/-+ Rs.5,000/- as hand loan to A-2’s clerk because A- 2 had to discharge debt due to A-1. The main allegation of the complainant against A-1 and A-2 was that A-1 having received Rs.1,10,000/- and A-2 having received Rs.50,000/- from the complainant after promising to give Sankaradada M.B.Bs., movie to the complainant, A-1 and A-2 colluded and cheated the complainant by A-2 exhibiting the said movie in his cinema hall. Total reading of the allegations contained in the complaint does not reveal any offence of Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code against A-2. It was not A-2 who gave promise to the complainant to give Sankardada M.B.Bs., movie to the complainant. As per allegations in the complaint, it was A-1 who is stated to have made the said promise to the complainant. The allegations of A-2 colluding with A-1 in the transaction does not arise at all because A-2 has no privity of contract. In this matter, the contract being between the complainant and A-1 alone. It is evident that since A-2 happened to be co- exhibitor, the complainant had roped in A-2 also in this case. As a bonafide exhibitor he exhibited Sankardada M.B.Bs movie in his cinema hall. During the course of his business. The transactions relating to A-2 are purely business transactions which do not attract any penal liability much less one under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed quashing registration of First Information Report in Crime No.126 of 2006 of Bapatla Town Police Station in so far as the petitioner/A-2 is concerned. ____________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU,J. Date:17.11.2009. Gk. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU CRL.PETITION NO.5758 OF 2006 Date: 17.11.2009 Gk.