IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRL.P.NO.1598 OF 2007. Date:09.02.2010 Between:- Kondisetti Naga Lakshmi ..Petitioner/Accused No.1 And Kondisetti Suvarnamala and another .. Respondents ORDER:- This petition is filed by the 1st accused under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing proceedings in C.C.No.179 of 2005 on the file of Additional Junior Civil Judge, Markapur relating to offence under Section 406 I.P.C. 2. A1 is wife of the 1st respondent’s son who is stated to be deaf and dumb. Marriage of A1 with the 1st respondent’s son took place in the year 1999. It is alleged that on 09.02.2005, the 1st respondent/defacto complainant left to Tirupathi to see her relations and taking advantage of temporary absence of the 1st respondent, A1 collected some gold ornaments worth Rs.1,00,000/- and cash of Rs.50,000/- and went away from house in early hours of 17.02.2005 along with A2. A2 is stated to be paramour of A1. On report given by the 1st respondent, the police investigated into the crime and filed charge sheet against A1 for offence punishable under Section 406 I.P.C. and against A2 for offence punishable under Section 498 I.P.C. Now A1 alone filed this petition in this Court. 3. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that false case was foisted against A1 without there being any basis for the offence. The question whether allegations against A1 are true or false cannot be gone into and decided in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is a matter which has to be decided by the trial Court after trial in which both the parties will be permitted to lead their respective evidence. 4. Secondly, it is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that the prosecution did not make out ingredients for offence under Section 405 I.P.C. in order to punish A1 under Section 406 I.P.C. Reliance is placed on S.N.PALANITKAR VS. STATE OF BIHAR[1] and it is contended that when there was nothing in the complaint or in statements of the complainant and witnesses that any property was entrusted to any of the accused at all or the accused had domain over any of the properties of the complainant which was dishonestly converted to their own use, so as to satisfy the ingredients of Section 405 I.P.C., it cannot be said that the accused committed offence under Section 405 I.P.C. It is further contended that there was no property in this case much less any entrustment of property to A1 by the 1st respondent. As per allegations in the charge sheet as well as report given by the 1st respondent to the police, A1 collected gold ornaments worth Rs.1,00,000/- and cash of Rs.50,000/- from the house and went away with A2. So the property involved in this case is gold ornaments worth Rs.1,00,000/- and cash of Rs.50,000/-. Even though there was no specific entrustment of the said property to A1, as per the prosecution case, the said property was taken away by A1 from their house having domain over the property. Thus, from allegations in the charge sheet and report, offence under Section 405 I.P.C. and its ingredients are prima facie made out. It is for the trial court to decide whether those allegations are true or not. As the matter now stands, I do not find any valid or legal reasons to quash the proceedings in this case. 5. In the result, the petition is dismissed. _​_________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J 9th February 2010 AMD [1] AIR 2001 Supreme Court Cases 2960