RUDRAVARAM JHANSI RANI Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 and 2 to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 82 of 2013 on the file of the XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. I have heard Sri B. Chandrasen Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri B. Venkateshwarlu, learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State.

(2.) The de facto complainant filed a complaint in the Court of the XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad against the petitioners/accused alleging the commission of offences under Sections 406, 409 and 420 of IPC. It is alleged in the charge sheet that the accused persons have floated a scheme with mala fide intention to collect money from the public and to deceive them, they induced LWs. 1, 2 and others to invest money in a scheme under the caption of "Money Investment Plan" (double your money) and offered to pay double the amount invested within a period of 10, 12 and 20 months. The petitioners collected several lakhs of rupees from Lws. 1 and 2 and other investors and to make them believe, made some payments and later on, failed to pay the amounts. Some cheques issued by the petitioners were also dishonoured. The complaint was forwarded by the learned Magistrate to the Police, Kachiguda for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The Police after thorough investigation into the case, filed the charge sheet. The allegations in the charge sheet clearly disclose that the petitioners collected several lakhs of rupees from LWs. 1 and 2 and other investors under the aforesaid scheme, made investments in real estate and to make the investors believe, initially they made some payments, subsequently stopped the payments as per the scheme. Some cheques issued by the petitioners were also said to be dishonoured. The details of all the moneys collected by the petitioners/accused have been mentioned in the charge sheet.

(3.) Sri B. Chandrasen Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the dispute between the parties is purely a civil dispute, in fact, the complainant filed O.S. No. 1009 of 2012 in the Court of the Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar for recovery of an amount of Rs. 45,40,000/-. In the said suit itself, the de facto complainant gave the details of the payments made by the petitioners and therefore, the petitioners cannot be prosecuted for the offences under Sections 406, 419, 420, 468, 471 r/w 34 I.P.C. In support of his contention, reliance is placed by the learned counsel on Venkat N.N. @ Venakta Narayana N. v. State of A.P. and Another, 2010 2 ALD(Cri) 765 (AP) wherein the learned single Judge held that breach of contract by itself shall not give rise to a criminal prosecution, unless the intention to cheat must be in existence from the inception of contract.