ANDLURI NARASIMHA REDDY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the order dtd. 7/5/2018 in C.F.R. No.1280 of 2018 passed by the First Class Judicial Magistrate, Kamalapuram and the consequential registration of the FIR No.126 of 2018, dtd. 18/5/2018 by the Station House Officer, Yerraguntla Police Station, for the offences under Ss. 420, 506 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

(2.) The petitioners herein are the accused Nos. 1 and 2. Respondent No.2 herein is the complainant. On 9/4/2018, a complaint was given by the complainant stating that the complainant and both the accused are residents of Yerraguntla town and that the complainant is a lorry owner by profession. In the month of January, 2017, both the accused approached the complainant's house and stated they are going to run a chit for Rs.20.00 lakhs having 16 installments and that they would take 4% commission. Having said so, the accused have induced the complainant to join in the chit promising good profits; in pursuance of which the complainant has joined in the chit which started from 20/2/2017. The complainant further stated that he made four others to join in the said chit believing the accused. Accordingly, from 20/2/2017 everyone have started making payments through installments and on 5/7/2017, a second chit was started by the accused luring the complainant and the aforesaid four persons. Subsequently, the complainant got to know that the accused are hiding and when the complainant went to the house of the accused on 26/2/2018 and demanded them to repay the chit amount, the accused have threatened the complainant with dire consequences. It is further stated in the complaint that when the complainant has approached the S.H.O. Yeraguntla P.S., for giving complaint against the accused, no action was taken against them. As such, a complaint was made to the Superintendent of Police, Kadapa, but of no avail. Hence, aggrieved by the aforesaid circumstances, the complainant has filed the present complaint against the accused under Sec. 156(3) of Cr.P.C., read with Sec. 200 of Cr.P.C., on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kamalapuram. Accordingly, the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kamalapuram has passed the impugned orders in C.F.R.No.1280/2018 dtd. 7/5/2018 forwarding the complaint to S.H.O., Yerraguntla P.S. under Sec. 156(3) of Cr.P.C., and for registration, investigation of the complaint. Pursuant to which, an F.I.R. vide F.I.R.No.126/2018, dtd. 18/5/2018 was registered at Yerraguntla P.S., for the offences punishable under Sec. 420, 506 read with 34 of IPC.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners would argue that the learned Judge has not applied his mind while passing the impugned orders dtd. 7/5/2018 as he has not taken into consideration whether there are prima facie allegations and material for the alleged offence warranting any investigation by the Police under Sec. 156(3) of Cr.P.C. It is further contended that the learned Judge has failed to see that the power under Sec. 156(3) Cr.P.C., can be exercised only if the complaint discloses the commission of the offence. He further stated that as the learned Judge has committed a serious illegality in directing the Police to register a crime, which amounts to taking cognizance of an offence without even prima facie enquiry, the order dtd. 7/5/2018 in C.F.R.No.1280 of 2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kamalapuram is liable to be quashed.