K CHANDRASEKHAR RAO Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks to quash the proceedings initiated against him in C.C.No.793 of 2004 on the file of the V Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, under Sections 409, 417 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (for brevity 'the IPC).

(2.) A private complaint had been filed by the second respondent herein against the petitioneralleging interalia the above offences upon which the learned V Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, took congnizance of the said offences and directed the process be issued against the petitioner.

(3.) It is alleged inter alia in the complaint (thus: The petitioner floated a new political party in the name of Telangana Rashtra Samithi (TRS) after having resigned from the office of Deputy Speaker of A.P. Legislative Assembly and M.L A. of Telugu Desam Party (TDP). While floating the party, he declared that the Congress Party did grave injustice to Telangana region and the TDP added to the woes of Telangana and thus both the said parties were the enemies of the people of Telangana region. When the A.P. State Legislative Assembly was dissolved in the month of December, 2003 and elections were notified consequently, the petitioner right from the dissolution of the Assembly kept the entire cadre of TRS under the belief that it would contest all the 107 seats in the Telangana region and called upon the members of the party to file applications for obtaining tickets to contest as its candidates in the ensuing elections. He fixed the fee per application at Rs. 10,005/- assuring the cadre that all 107 seats in the Telangana region would be contested by the party and that the question of any alliance with any other political party would not arise and that he further assured that the amount of Rs. 10,005/- should be returned in case any aspirant was not allotted a ticket. The second respondent who worked as Additional Public Prosecutor of the Court of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District having been impressed by such declaration made by the petitioner, met and discussed with him the plans for achieving a separate statehood for Telangana. Upon assurance given by the petitioner that in case the second petitioner resigns and works full time for the party he would be given a ticket to contest in the elections, he resigned from the post and took a plunge into active politics. On 04-02-2004 he paid an amount of Rs. 10,005/- along with an application aspiring a ticket to contest from the Mahbubabad Assembly Constituency in Warangal District. A receipt in token of having received the said amount was given to him but it had not been signed by the petitioner and the second respondent did not object to the same in good faith. Thus, the petitioner received about 771 applications from various aspirants for the 107 Assembly segments of Telangana region and from each applicant he collected an amount of Rs. 10,005/-, in all Rs.77 lakhs and odd. While collecting applications and money from the aspirants of TRS, the petitinoer secretly negotiated with Indian National Congress (I) and surreptitiously struck a deal and entered into an alliance whereby the TRS had ultimately to contest only 42 out of 107 seats from Telangana region. He never allowed any of the aspirants to know of his secret deal with Congress party till the fag end of the filing of nominations. He did not allot tickets to the complainant and many of the aspirants from whom he collected the amounts at Rs. 10,005/-each. On the contrary, he allotted tickets to outsiders who did not file applications and who were the fence sitters and discordants of the TDP and Congress after having collected huge amounts from them ignoring the claim of the real cadre of the TRS or those who filed their applications. The persons who were given tickets did not file their applications earlier. When with great difficulty the second respondent and other aspirants caught hold of the petitioner on 30-03-2004 and demanded for refund of the amount, he refused to give any reasons nor did he return the amount thus collected. Contrary to the expectations of the second respondent that the amount thus collected from the applicants would be deposited in the account of TRS, on verification, the complainant found that the amount of Rs.77 lakhs and odd was not at all deposited in the account of the TRS. The petitioner thus knowing in advance that he would be entering into an alliance with the Indian National Congress (I) collected applications for all the 107 Assembly Constituencies, kept the second respondent and other aspirants under an earnest belief that the TRS would contest from all the 107 Constituencies, collected the amounts from the aspirants at the rate of Rs. 10.005/- each not with an intention to return the amount so collected, thereby he misappropriated those amounts and cheated the second respondent and other aspirants.