A SANTHAMMA Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Code') by the petitioners/A.1 and A.2 requesting to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.625 of 2012 on the file of the V Additional District Munsif Magistrate, Tirupati.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that the de facto complainant gave a complaint that the accused are running finance business without any valid pawn broker licence. The accused have been usually lending the meagre amounts of Rs.5,000/ -, Rs.10,000/ - and Rs.15,000/ - to third parties and obtaining registered mortgage deeds and also obtaining blank promissory notes from them by taking advantage of the necessity of the third parties. The accused are also claiming interest @ 60% to 120%. While so, on 25.06.2002 the de facto complainant, his parents and his elder brother mortgaged their house bearing D.No.16 -201 situated at S.No.395, Karakambodi Village, Renigunta Mandal to A.2 by executing a registered mortgage deed vide Document No.1911/2002 and borrowed a sum of Rs.30,000/ - @ 2/ - per month, and A.2 also obtained blank promissory note from his parents. Though the recitals of the mortgage deed shows only 24% interest, the accused has been claiming interest @ 60% to 120% per annum. Since then, they paid an amount of Rs.1,200/ - per month towards interest as demanded by the petitioners. During the year 2009, the de facto complainant and his parents secured the principal and interest and approached the accused to pay the entire amount and to discharge the mortgage, but the accused have been postponing the same on one pretext or other. At last, the accused demanded them to give an amount of Rs.2 lakh, otherwise they will not execute the document of discharge. Basing on the above allegation, the police registered a case in Crime No.17 of 2012.

(3.) THE present Criminal Petition is filed on the ground that the allegation made in the complaint regarding demand of Rs.2 lakhs from the de facto complainant is not correct and for avoiding the payment of loan, a false case has been filed. Further, the persons, who were cited as witnesses in the complaint, are trying to evade the amount borrowed by them from the petitioners.