M SURYANARAYANA MURTHY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. seeks quashing of the proceedings in F. I.R. No. 66 of 2000 registered at P. S. Chilkalaguda in which the petitioner is accused of offences under Sections 403, 405, 420, 425 and 500 I.P.C.

(2.) The First Information Report has been registered on the basis of a written complaint lodged by one Srinivas and others said to be the victims of the offence in question. The complaint discloses that the de facto complainants are unemployed persons possessing certain educational qualifications. They were given to understand that the accused was going to establish a Co-operative Urban Bank in Himayathnagar at Hyderabad for which he needed staff. Thereupon the de facto complainants approached the accused, who represented to them that he was going to establish a bank called Abhay Co-operative Urban Bank Limited. He further offered them that if they contributed Rs. 50,000-00 to Rs. 1,00,000-00 towards share capital, they will be provided jobs in the proposed bank. On the basis of this representation by the accused, the de facto complainants altogether are said to have paid a sum of Rs. 9,40,000-00 to the accused in cash. According to the complaint, after receiving the said amounts the accused issued appointment letters to the de facto complainants for various posts of attenders, clerks, sub staff, etc. The appointment letters purported to direct them report to duty on 15/09/1998 and on 20-8-1999. After receiving these letters when the de facto complainants went to the accused to report for duty, they discovered to their shock that no bank was established at all and they discovered that the accused had cheated them after inducing them to pay huge amounts.

(3.) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that after the de facto complainants found that no bank was established they demanded the amounts back from the accused and that in pursuance of those demands the accused executed promissory notes in favour of the de facto complainants and asked them to wait for one week to receive back their payments. But apparently, the accused did not payback those amounts. The contention is that the de facto complainants having accepted the promissory notes from the accused towards the amounts said to have been paid by them to the accused must be deemed to have compounded the offence with the accused and as such no prosecution could lie against the accused. This contention appears farfetched.