P SHOBA RANI Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners 1 and 2 in this batch of petitions are A-2 and A-5 in Crime Nos.91, 88, 95, 97, 98, 89, 92, 87, 90, 96, 93 of 2010 of Dharmavaram Police Station, Anantapur District and they are accused of offences punishable under Sections 403, 406, 409 and 420 IPC. THE 2nd respondent in all these petitions filed private complaints in the Court of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Dharmavaram and they were referred by the Magistrate to the police for investigation and report under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. THE complainants are Silk Sarees Merchants at Dharmavaram. It is alleged that the accused are doing cloth business including silk sarees under various names and that the accused purchased Silk Sarees from the respective complainants to the following extent in each case under several invoices: It is further alleged that the accused represented that they are highly reputed persons and are having huge properties and are making huge profits and that the accused promised to pay entire bill amounts within one month and thereby induced the complainants for delivery of goods on credit basis and that the accused failed to pay amount within one month and that when the accused failed to pay amount within one month and that when the accused were requested on telephone and personally by going to karimnagar number of times, the accused were postponing payment of value of goods on some pretext or the other. It is further alleged that recently the complainants came to know that the accused were trying to wind up their shop and shift stocks in their shop to a place convenient to them and that it is revealed that the accused have absolutely no intention to repay the amount and the accused with dishonest intention and playing fraud on the complainants without any intention to repay the amounts, have misappropriated the goods for themselves with a view to unjustly enrich themselves and to cause wrongful loss to the complainants.

(2.) IT is contended by the petitioners' Counsel that allegations in the private complaints are civil in nature and that even if those allegations are taken on their face value, they do not disclose any of the offences for which the crimes were registered by the police and that the petitioners are no more partners in the firms as they retired from the partnerships after invoking Section 32 of the Partnership Act and that the transactions were carried out by A-1 and A-3 only.

(3.) IN V.Y. Jose v. State of Gujarat, (2009) 3 SCC 78, the Supreme Court held: