IREN CHOUDARY Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision case is filed by the petitioner-A1 to set aside the order dated 23.09.2014 in Crl.M.P. No.3211 of 2008 in CC No.384 of 2007 (Old CC No.165 of 2006) on the file of XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that on 31.01.2005, the de facto complainant - Legal Manager of M/s.GE Countrywide Financial Services Ltd., Secunderabad, lodged a complaint before the Police, WCO, Team-II, CCS, Hyderabad, stating that one Viren Chowdary, petitioner-A1, Managing Director of M/s.Acer Motors, Tirumalgerri, Secunderabad was a dealer in Maruthi Cars and was doing business in used cars and was appointed as Direct Selling Agent and responsible for sourcing the business of getting customers, who were in need to take vehicles on loan and to submit all the connected documents of the customers to G.E. Countrywide for sanction of loan. The de facto complainant detected fraud and cheating by the accused, who submitted forged and fake documents of RC books and got loan sanctioned to the customers without vehicles in some cases and second hypothecation in some other cases. As many as 67 cases of fraud of fake registration certificates were detected by the complainant firm which were processed by the accused. The de facto complainant stated that an amount of Rs.1.4 crores was disbursed to the customers through the accused on fabricated and fake registration documents. Basing on the same, a complaint was registered by the Inspector of Police, CCS Team-II, DD, Hyderabad in Crime No.81 of 2005 under Sections 406, 420, 468 and 471 IPC. After investigation, the Inspector of Police deleted the names of A1 and A6 and filed charge sheet against A2 to A5 alone.

(3.) Aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioner -A1 preferred this revision contending that the learned Magistrate failed to appreciate that the ingredients for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC required existence of contract and from the facts of the case and the investigation conducted, it would clearly reveal that the agreement put forth by the complainant was forged and that no contract was signed between the parties. Under such circumstances, the ingredients for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 were not made out and the complaint deserved to be quashed against the petitioner-A1. With regard to the offence under Section 463 IPC, he alleged that from the statements of witnesses it was clear that the petitioner had no role to play in this offence, none of the customers made a single mention of the petitioner 's involvement in any manner. The Magistrate failed to appreciate that all the payments received by the petitioner-A1were immediately issued by way of cheque to the respective parties.