POTHANI CHANDRASHEKER Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This common order shall dispose of all the above 29 Criminal Petitions filed under Section 482 of the CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 (Cr.P.C.). The petitioner is the Chairman of M/s. Koratla Permanent Fund Limited, Karimnagar. On complaints given by various depositors, cases under Sections 406, 420 of INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 (I.P.C.) and Section 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999 (for brevity 'the Act') were registered. After the charge-sheet is filed, the petitioner, who is accused in all the crimes, invoked the inherent power of this Court praying to quash the criminal complaints on various grounds. The matters were directed to be listed for hearing. In some of the cases the respondents i.e., the de facto complainants were served with notices and in some other cases the petitioner did not choose to make the de facto complainants as respondents. Be that as it is, as the allegations made against the petitioner and his company are of very serious nature and by reason of the interim orders passed by this Court in the month of December, 2002 the entire proceedings have come to stand-still, this Court heard the matters in detail and all the matters are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) Taking Criminal Petition No.5573 of 2002 the facts may be noticed. Be it also noted that the defacto complainant, by name Vasala Ganga Rao, son of Veeresham, resident of Mallial, Karimnagar District, is not made a party respondent though the cognizable offences under Sections 420 and 406 I.P.C. were registered by the police on information given by him. Coming to the facts of the case, the complainant in his complaint alleged that, as requested by the petitioner, he collected an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from different people and gave money to the petitioner. In spite of repeated requests to return the money, the petitioner dodged the issue promising that he would return the money after disposing of his property. Insofar as other complaints are concerned, it was the same story. M/s. Koratla Permanent Fund Limited, promoted by the petitioner, invited deposits from the general public promising to give twice the amount or thrice the amount after expiry of five years. A large number of people deposited the amount and the petitioner representing the company gave Deposit Receipts in May, 1995. But after expiry of the period he did not return the redeemable value of deposit receipt amount of Rs.15,000/-. On these complaints, P.S. Mallial registered some cases under Sections 406 and 420 I.P.C. The police also registered some cases under Section 5 of the Act and other cases under Section 5 as well as Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. After investigation, as noticed supra, the charge-sheet was filed. In the cases filed by some of the persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, an allegation is made to the effect that when the depositors approached the petitioner for return of money, the petitioner abused those persons by using the caste name so as to insult and intimidate them.

(3.) In these petitions the learned Counsel for the petitioners Sri Bethi Venkateswarlu appearing in some of the cases and also representing Sri N. V. Ranga Rao, who filed appearance in other cases, made the following submissions. When the petitioner invited deposits promising to pay twice or thrice the amount after expiry of five years, there was no dishonest fraudulent intention to cheat, and therefore, the offence of cheating is not made out. According to the learned Counsel, the facts do not disclose any element of misappropriation. Secondly, he would urge that M/s. Koratla Permanent Fund Limited has filed a petition being Company Petition No.113 of 2000 before the Company Court and the said company is in liquidation, by reason of which criminal act complaints are not maintainable. Thirdly, it is his submission that the complaints were registered by P.S. Mallial and other Police Stations in gross violation of the provisions of Section 220(1) of Cr.P.C. He would urge that by reason of the definition 'Financial Establishments' under Section 2(c) of the Act, a company registered under Companies Act, 1956 is not liable for prosecution for an alleged offence under Section 5 of the Act. Lastly he submits that all the complainants are the shareholders of the company, that after receiving the amount the company issued share certificates to all the shareholders, and therefore, the offence under Sections 406, 420 of I.P.C. and Section 5 of the Act are not attracted.