V KUTUMBA RAO Vs. M CHANDRASEKHAR RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The background facts for Criminal Petition No. 1698 of 2001 and Criminal R.C. No. 761 of 2001 are same. Therefore, both the petitions are being disposed of by a common order.

(2.) M. Chandrasekhara Rao (hereinafter referred to as 'complainant') subscribed to various chits run by V. Kutumba Rao (hereinafter to be referred as 'accused') in the name of Swapana Priya Chits and Finance Private Limited. Accused was running it benami in the name of his brother V. Satyanarayana as Executive Director and Sri G. S. Reddy as Managing Director. Complainant subscribed various amounts to various chits. In all the accused became liable to pay Rs. 60,00,000.00 to the complainant. He executed two promissory notes dated 15-8-1998 for Rs. 3,00,000.00 each in favour of the complainant promising to repay those amounts with interest at 24% per annum. Subsequently the accused issued five post-dated cheques for a total sum of Rs. 1,86,750-00 to the complainant. Complainant deposited those cheques in his bank on 8-9-1999 for realisation. All those cheques were returned unpaid by the bank of the accused with a memo dated 9-9-1999 with an endorsement of "insufficient funds". Thereafter the complainant gave a report to the police stating that the accused induced him to deposit various amounts in the Chit Funds, subsequently issued cheques which bounced and thereby the accused cheated the complainant. After investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet in CC. No. 1324 of 1999 on the file of XXII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, for the offence punishable under Section 420, IPC. After police report, the complainant followed the procedure envisaged under the provisions of Negotiable Instruments Act and as accused did not repay the amount covered by various cheques issued by him, he filed a private complaint in CC.No. 737 of 1999 on the file of V Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The learned Magistrate had taken cognizance of the said complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and issued summons to the accused. In CC.No. 1324 of 1999 the prosecution examined four witnesses and marked Exs. P. 1 to P. 40. On a consideration of evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned Magistrate held that the charge under Section 420, IPC is not proved against the accused. Aggrieved by the said order of acquittal, the complainant filed a revision in Criminal R.C. No. 761 of 2001 in this Court questioning the order of acquittal. The accused in his turn filed a separate petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C. in Criminal Petition No. 1698 of 2001 requesting this Court to quash the complaint in CC.No. 737 of 1999 on the ground that the accused cannot be prosecuted twice on the same set of facts and in view of the acquittal of the accused in CC. No. 1324 of 1999, the private complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is liable to be quashed.

(3.) At the outset I would consider the revision. The learned Counsel for the Complainant contended that some irrelevant matters were taken into consideration by the learned Magistrate and held that the charge under Section 420, IPC is not proved against the accused. The learned Magistrate in his judgment stated that the Investigating Officer admitted that he has not collected any material from the Registrar of Companies to know the number and names of Directors and status of Swapna Priya Chits. There is no need for the Investigating Officer to collect the names of the directors of Swapna Priya Chits inasmuch as according to prosecution it is the accused who induced the complainant to invest huge amounts in the chit funds and who ultimately deceived the complainant. The complainant undisputedly filed a civil suit against the accused on the basis of two pro-notes executed by the accused. The learned Magistrate in his judgment ignoring the evidence on record observed that the accused is not a party to the said civil suit.