RAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF AP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitionerA-2 seeks to quash the proceedings against him in Cr.No.1/2019 of CID, AP., Amaravathi, Mangalagiri Police Station, registered against the petitioner and others for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 120-B IPC and Sections 4 & 5 of the Prize Chits & Money Circulation Banning Act, 1978.

(2.) On the complaint of D.Venkata Prasannam, the police registered the aforesaid crime. The complaint allegations in nutshell are that in June, 2018 he came across a brochure issued by Future Maker Life Care Private Limited. On verification he came to know that it was a business plan and if investment is made, one would get high amount. He acquired some more information through website WWW. FUTUREMAKER.BIZ . When he contacted the customer care centre of said company, they informed about the schemes and asked him to come to their Head Office in Hissar town in Haryana for further information. Accordingly, the complaint and his friend Pullarao went to Hissar on 03.06.2018 and met A1, who is the C.M.D., and A2, who is the M.D, of the said company and one Bansilal Sinha. All of them explained about the benefits of the scheme and induced the complainant to deposit amounts to get high returns. Accordingly, the complainant paid an amount of Rs.5.25 lakhs from time-to-time in the months of July and August 2018 through the bank accounts i.e., A/c.No.408100301000170 of Vijaya Bank, Chirala Branch and A/c.No.20252652074 of State Bank of India, Ipurupalem Branch, Chirala. In return the complainant got Rs.18,000/- as royalty for first month on 06.09.2018 credited to his account in Vijaya Bank. However, thereafter no amount was received by him. Similarly his agent K.Madhusudhan Rao, Sure Sambasiva Rao, P.Ramakrishna and other customers who deposited the amounts did not receive any amounts. Later they came to know through Television that Future Maker Life Care Private Limited was closed and the company Directs were arrested by the police. Hence, the complaint.

(3.) Heard Sri K.S.Murthy, learned counsel for petitioner, and learned Public Prosecutor representing the first respondent-State.