IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA CRL.P.NO.1117 OF 2010. Date:10.03.2010 Between:- G.Rajasekhar Reddy and another ..Petitioners/A-1 and A-2 And The State of A.P., represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and another .. Respondents ORDER:- Heard the learned counsel. 2. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 that the petitioners/A-1 and A-2 were partners and run a chit fund in the name and style of KNR Krushi Chit Funds registered under the Registrar of Firms, Karimnagar along with other partners. Since the beginning of the chit fund firm, the business was carried in smooth manner without any hurdle and hindrance. Further, it is stated that respondent No.2/defacto complainant joined the chit in the series No.KLT5/4 with ticket No.31 for a value of Rs.5,00,000/- and had to pay a monthly subscription of Rs.12,500/- for a period of forty months and the said chit was commenced from February, 2007. Respondent No.2/defacto complainant was irregular in paying the chit instalments and not prompt in keeping the promise. It is also stated that respondent No.2/defacto complainant had raised false allegations with ulterior motives to degrade the petitioners in the society. It is incorrect to say that the office did not function properly and the petitioners did not conduct the auctions of the chits regularly. The allegation of respondent No.2/defacto complainant that the petitioners misused the funds is false. The agents of the chit fund have approached respondent No.2/defacto complainant for payment of the instalments due. As respondent No.2/defacto complainant was irregular and defaulter, to cover up his irregularities, made the alleged allegations against the petitioners for harassing them. It is further stated that the partnership firm KNR Krushi Chit Fund (Regd) deed dated 22.05.2004 clearly emphasises that the subscriber, who has been introduced by the partner, shall have the bearing on the said partner and as such, the liability would be on Sri M.Narsaiah, who is a partner and presently looking after the affairs of the said chit fund firm. Respondent No.2, in collusion with said Mr.Narsaiah, had initiated a private complaint for degrading the petitioners/A-1 and A-2 with false allegations. It is further stated that on verifying the records, it was found that the petitioner No.1/A-1 did not attend the day-to-day affairs due to his personal engagements. On the same day, all the partners of the firm came together and conducted a meeting and resolved on 22.03.2009 that Mr.Narsaiah shall take over the responsibility of running the firm and as such, petitioner No.1/A-1 is totally innocent about the incident that took place in carrying the business. Respondent No.2/defacto complainant was introduced by M.Narsaiah and as such, the responsibility of his liability is on the shoulders of M.Narsaiah. Respondent No.2/defacto complainant had not chosen to complain against the responsible person, which indicates that the complaint is filed with ulterior motives. 3. In such circumstances, quashing of F.I.R.No.382 of 2009 dated 27.11.2009 against the petitioners/A-1 and A-2 had been prayed for on the ground that it is a pure abuse of the process of law. 4. This Court had carefully gone through the allegations in the complaint. These are all factual controversies, which have to be gone into at the stage of further investigation. Hence, it is not a fit case to quash the F.I.R. at this stage. 5. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _​_____________ P.S.NARAYANA, J 10th March, 2010 AMD