KANNA PHANEENDRA Vs. JANA RAMA RAO AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) W.A.Nos.231 and 232 of 2017 are filed by the 3rd respondent in W.P.Nos.44395 and 41802 of 2016 aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Single Judge granting stay of arrest of the 1st respondent in both the appeals. Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Deshpande, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, Sri C.V.Mohan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent in W.A.No.231 of 2017, and Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent in W.A.No.232 of 2017.

(2.) It is convenient to refer to the events which led to the filing of W.A.No.232 of 2017, in as much as the order passed in W.P.No.41802 of 2016, which is subject matter of challenge in this appeal, was the first of the two orders passed by the Learned Single Judge. The appellant-3rd respondent filed a complaint before the Nagarampalem Police Station, Guntur Urban, which was registered as F.I.R.No.281 of 2016 dated 11.09.2016. The complaint refers to an incident which is said to have taken place five days prior thereto on 06.09.2016 between 11:00 to 11:30 pm. Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent, has read out the complaint in its entirety, and has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Indian Oil CORPN. vs. NEPC India LTD, 2006 6 SCC 736, to contend that a civil dispute between the parties was given the colour of a criminal complaint, only to recover the amounts which the complainant claims to be due to him from the 1st respondent-writ petitioners. It is unnecessary for us to refer to the contents of the complaint in this order, as it would be wholly inappropriate for us to express any opinion in this regard, as the writ petitions, filed by the 1st respondents in both these appeals, are pending admission before the Learned Single Judge.

(3.) Though the complaint was registered on 11.09.2016, no action appears to have been taken by the concerned police officials against the 1st respondent-writ petitioners, and it is only two months thereafter that both of them moved an application before this Court seeking anticipatory bail. The application seeking anticipatory bail, in Criminal Petition No.16123 of 2016, was dismissed by this Court, by its order dated 25.11.2016, holding that having regard to the nature of allegations, and to unearth the true facts, custodial interrogation was required; and he was not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the 1st respondent-writ petitioners. The Learned Single Judge, however, observed that, since cash transactions of Rs.14.00 crores had taken place between the 1st respondent-writ petitioners and the appellantcomplainant, a copy of the order should be sent to the Income Tax Department to look into whether the transactions between them were legal or not. While Criminal Petition No.16123 of 2016 was filed on behalf of both the 1st respondents in these two appeals, it is the 1st respondent in W.A.No.232 of 2017 who first filed W.P. No.41802 of 2016 before this Court.