LAWS(APH)-2020-10-71

TULLI SRINIVAS Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Decided On October 12, 2020
Tulli Srinivas Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to quash the proceedings in F.I.R.No.682 of 2020 dated 03.08.2020 of Pendurthy Police Station, Visakhapatnam registered for the offences punishable under Sections 354-A, 509 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

(2.) The petitioner before this Court is the sole accused in the above said crime.

(3.) The brief facts of the case are that a complaint was lodged by respondent No.2/complainant alleging that she has approached the petitioner to settle her disputes in respect of her properties. Accordingly respondent No.2 engaged the petitioner as Advocate and O.S.Nos.829 of 2008 and 363 of 2009 were filed by the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner has misbehaved withrespondent No.2 on several occasions as she is widow and as the petitioner was taking care of her legal issues, she could not reveal the same to anyone. It is also alleged in the complaint that the petitioner has demanded Rs.18,00,000/- towards his fee from respondent No.2 and as it was not paid, he used to send his men to respondent No.2's residence for collection of Rs.18,000/- towards interest on the demanded fee. The petitioner also obtained two blank cheques from respondent No.2 and signatures of respondent No.2's family members on empty bond paper. He got filed cheque bounce cases against respondent No.2 by unknown persons. It is also alleged that he took amounts of Rs.2,00,000/-, 2,35,000/- and Rs.5,00,000/- and some original documents belonging to the father of respondent No.2. When she asked to handover the papers, he has postponed the same on one ground or the other. It was also alleged that on 22.07.2020, the petitioner issued legal notice to respondent No.2 demanding her to pay Rs.18,00,000/- towards his fee. It was also stated that the petitioner has been threatening respondent No.2 by stating that as he is Advocate no Police will interfere with his acts. Basing on the complaint, the present crime is registered.