IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.394 OF 2009 Between: Paresh Dhanji Chadda … PETITIONER And The State of A.P. & another … RESPONDENTS This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.394 OF 2009 ORDER: 1. The petitioner/A1 is accused of offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 120B I.P.C. in C.C.No.232 of 2000. It is stated in the petition that the case is pending in XVII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Hyderabad. There is no such Court in existence at Hyderabad. It must have been XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. 2. It is alleged that A1 to A3 opened current account in Charminar Co-operative Urban Bank Limited in King Koti Branch, Hyderabad. A6 namely M/s.Prince Plastics is stated to be a fake one. It is also alleged that there is no person by name Surender representing M/s.Prince Plastics and that the address given for A6 is also a fake one. A4 is Manager and A5 is Managing Director of the bank. The police included them as accused persons on the ground that they were having hand-in-glove with A1 to A3 in opening the account and in this fraud. Ultimately, a cheque for Rs.1,66,80,000/- was deposited and cleared on discount and a demand draft was obtained for its value. The deposited cheque could not be encashed by the bank on the ground of “exceed arrangements”. Thereupon, this case was registered at the instance of A5 who later became an accused person in this case. 3. It is contended that the case pertaining to A1 is only under Section 420 I.P.C. and that to constitute the said offence, there must be deception from inception of the transaction. When it is alleged that opening of current account itself is a fraud and when the account was opened in a fake name of the establishment with fake address and in the name of a fake person, it cannot be said that there was no allegation of deception at the inception. 4. The bank filed C.C.No.296 of 1998, allegedly for dishonour of the present cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and it was dismissed for default and the accused therein were acquitted by order dated 27.12.2002. By the year 2002, the bank went into liquidation and cases were booked against the bank under Section 5 of the A.P. Protection of Depositors of the Financial Establishments Act. Dismissal of C.C.No.296 of 1998 by the lower Court has no relevance in the present case. 5. It is contended that subsequently, the bank recovered the amount covered by the alleged defrauded amount from the accused. It is not borne out by record. At any rate, it will not absolve the petitioner and other accused from their criminal liability, but can only be a mitigating circumstance in awarding sentence against them in case the offences are going to be proved. 6. I do not find any valid reasons to quash pending proceedings in the lower Court having regard to gravity of this case, inspite of the case being an old one of the year 2000. 7. Hence, the criminal petition is dismissed. ______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J August 19, 2010 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.394 OF 2009 August 19, 2010 KL