VEJENDLA SRINIVASAPRASAD Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Criminal Petition No. 558 of 2001 is filed by A1 to A3 and Criminal Petition No. 662 of 2001 is filed by A4 to A6 in C.C. No. 21 of 2001 on the file of the Court of the VII Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur to quash the proceedings in the said C.C.

(2.) Since both the petitions arise out of the same C.C., they are being disposed of by this common order.

(3.) The case of the prosecution is that A1 is the son and A2 is the daughter of A3. A3 and A4 are co-employees. A5 is the wife of A4 and A6 is the father of A5. One V. Lakshmi Narasamma, N. Lakshmi Raja Kumari (de facto complainant) and A1 and A2 became partners and started finance business under the name and style of Messrs. Jaya Lakshmi Financiers at Guntur with its office in the house of A1 and A3. Though A3 was not a partner in the firm, he used to look after the business of the said firm. The partners of the firm i.e. A1, A2, de facto complainant and V. Lakshmi Narasamma, who is the grandmother of A1 and A2, with an intention to start a branch at Tenali, took a building bearing door No. 6-2-39 for rent in May, 1996 and started business there, placing A1 as incharge of the branch at Tenali with the de facto complainant as the Managing Partner. As Managing Partner, the de facto complainant opened a current account No. 891 in the Syndicate Bank, Tenali, keeping the cheque power with her. The said Bank issued a cheque book bearing Nos. 454126 to 50 to the de facto complainant on 16-5-1996. Reposing full confidence and in good faith, the de facto complainant, after having signed all the cheques in the cheque book entrusted the same to A1 to be used by him in connection with the business. The fixed deposit receipt Books of the firm were also entrusted to A1. Disputes cropped up between A1 to A3 and de facto complainant during 1998. Therefore, A1 stopped business at Tenali and taking advantage of the fact that he continued to be in possession of the cheque book containing the signatures of the de facto complainant and also the book containing the fixed deposit receipts, hatched a plan, in conspiracy with the other accused to cheat the de facto complainant and issued forged fixed deposit receipts for Rs. 30,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- dated 10-10-1996 bearing Nos. 12 and 13 respectively to A4 and A5, as if they made a deposit of Rs. 30,000/- and Rs.20,000/- with the firm, with a view to cheat the de facto complainant. Ostensibly to meet the demand for repayment of the amount covered by the fixed deposit receipts, a cheque for Rs. 83,000/- was issued by A1 to A4 and A5 making use of the blank cheque signed by the de facto complainant on 10-7-1999. A4 and A5, who have a joint account in Union Bank of India seem to have deposited the cheque for Rs. 83,000/- in their account in Union Bank of India, Laxmipuram Branch, Guntur. When the cheque was presented to the Syndicate Bank, the same was returned to A4 on 16-7-1999. Subsequent presentation also met with the same fate. Therefore, with a view to harass the de facto complainant in conspiracy with A1 to A3 and A6; A4 and A5 launched a criminal prosecution under S.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the de facto complainant in C.C. No. 17 of 2000. Similarly A6 also filed C.C. No. 253 of 1999 against the de facto complainant even without presenting the fixed deposit receipt on the basis that he made a fixed deposit with the firm and that the cheque given to him in discharge of the amount due to him under that fixed deposit receipt was dishonoured. Contending that the fixed deposit receipts issued in favour of A4 to A6 are not genuine and are forged, and that the accused are guilty of criminal breach of trust, the de facto complainant filed a private complaint before the IV Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur, who sent the same to police for investigation, under S. 156(3), Cr. P.C. The police took up investigation and found that the signatures of the de facto complainant in the fixed deposit receipts issued to A4 and A5 are forged and hence filed a charge-sheet for offences under S. 406, 120-B read with Sections 468, 471 and 109, IPC against A1; for offences under Ss. 109, 120-B read with Sections 406, 468, 471 against A2; for an offence under Ss. 109 and 120-B read with Sections 406, 468, 471, IPC against A3; for offences under Ss. 120-B, 468, 471 and 195, IPC against A4 and A5 and S. 120-B read with Sections 406 and 471 against A6.