THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.22326 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner is the Manager of Hyderabad branch of M/s. City Limouzines (India) Limited. The Company has its Head Office at Nariman Point, Mumbai. One Mr. A.H. Majeed is the Managing Director of that company. The Company is running a scheme under which a car would be purchased by it in the name of an investor, who deposits a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-, and the car would be used as a taxi, under its management, for a period of 60 months. The investor would be paid a fixed amount, every month up to 60 months, and thereafter, he would be delivered the vehicle in working condition. Advance post- dated cheques would be issued for every year. Quite large number of customers were attracted and deposits to the tune of several hundred of crores of rupees were received. The 3rd respondent filed a complaint before the Station House Officer, P.S. Abid Road, Hyderabad, the 2nd respondent, on 15.09.2009, alleging that he joined as a customer of the Company, and was issued post-dated cheques, but the cheques were dishonoured with effect from 2009. Cheques for the earlier period are said to have been honoured. F.I.R.No.299 of 2009 was registered against the petitioner and the Managing Director of the Company, A.H.Majeed, alleging crimes punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of I.P.C. and under Section 5 of the A.P. Protection of Depositors and Financial Establishments Act, 1999 (for short ‘the Act’). This Writ Petition is filed with a prayer to quash the F.I.R., on the ground that the contents thereof do not make out offences alleged against him On behalf of respondents 1 and 2, a counter-affidavit is filed. It is stated that the fraud committed by the Company, with the participation of the petitioner, is to the tune of Rs.150/- crores in the State of Andhra Pradesh, and nearly 14,000 depositors have been deceived. The details of the cases that have been registered against the Company, its Chairman and Managing Director at various places of the country; the proceedings instituted in different Courts and the result thereof, are mentioned. According to respondents 1 and 2, a clear case is made out not only of cheating the general public, but also of violation of the provisions of the Act. The petitioner contends that the scheme was introduced with an object of encouraging the investors, but on account of the recent financial uncertainties, the cheques for one or two months were not honoured. He contends that the Company is prepared to honour its commitment towards its customers and there was absolutely no basis for the complainant. He submits that the contents of the complaint would, at the most, constitute a case, under the Negotiable Instruments Act, or a civil suit, and registration of F.I.R., is untenable in law. Learned Advocate General submits that through its wide network, the Company has cheated and committed fraud on innocent persons, mostly from middle class. He contends that with an ulterior motive, the Company had evolved a scheme, which is at once, attractive, and having received substantial amounts, it came out in its true colours and deceived the depositors. He further contends that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner and the Managing Director have wide ramifications and that when the Bombay High Court granted relief to them, the Supreme Court intervened and permitted the investigation to go on. It hardly needs any mention that the scope of interference by this Court with the F.I.Rs., or for that matter, the proceedings initiated under Cr.P.C. alleging crimes under I.P.C. and other penal enactments, is very limited. The persons accused in such crimes have to defend themselves or to seek remedies provided for under the Code itself. It is only when the Court finds that no crime can be discerned, even if the contents of a complaint are taken on their face value, that a possibility would exist for quashing the F.I.R. Barring that, a writ Court would not even peep into the truth or otherwise of the allegations contained in the complaint. Ultimately, it is in the course of investigation that the facts constituting the charge have to be proved by the prosecution. An accused can always point out the defects in the investigation or trial. In the instant case, the 3rd respondent clearly alleged that the petitioner and the Managing Director of the Company have cheated him by making him to believe that the scheme would be implemented as promised. The facts of the case reveal that it was not an accidental omission to pay one or two instalments to the 3rd respondent. Thousands of investors are facing similar situation and are worried. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the complaint does not disclose any crime. Allegations similar to those against the petitioner in the impugned F.I.R. were dealt with by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.146 of 2009. That case arose out of a judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court through which, the F.I.R., registered against the Managing Director of the Company, was quashed. After discussing the facts and the applicable law, at length, the Supreme Court held that the F.I.R. cannot be quashed. The said judgment covers the facts of this case. The Writ Petition is therefore dismissed. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.23.02.2010. GJ