Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Prakruthi Ratna Kumari vs Raajana Ramanamma on 11 December, 2020
Author: Cheekati Manavendranath Roy
Bench: Cheekati Manavendranath Roy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5725 OF 2020
ORDER:-
This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.") is filed seeking quash of the F.I.R. in Crime No.724 of 2020 of III Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam City, Visakhapatnam District.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the 2nd respondent/state.
3. On a report lodged by the 1st respondent, who is the de facto complainant alleging that the 1st petitioner with the support of 2nd and 3rd petitioners, has run the chit fund business in the locality where they are residing in the year 2014 to 2017 and in the month of October, 2017, she absconded from the village without paying the money payable to the subscribers of the said chit fund scheme and thereby cheated the 1st respondent and other members of the chit, police have registered a case under Sections 420 and 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "I.P.C.") and under Section 4 r/w 76(1) of the Chit Funds Act, 1982 in the above Crime No.724 of 2020 of III Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam City. The said case is now under investigation.
4. The allegations set out in the F.I.R. prima facie constitute the offences punishable under Sections 420, 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C. and under the Chit Funds Act.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners sought quash of the F.I.R. on the ground that there is delay in lodging the F.I.R. 2
6. It is settled law that mere delay in lodging the F.I.R. is not fatal to the prosecution case and every delay by itself will not debilitate the case of the prosecution. It is only the inordinate delay and unexplained delay which may have bearing on the validity of the criminal proceedings launched against the accused and that too, is the matter to be considered by the trial Court during the course of trial. Whether the said allegations set out in the F.I.R. are true or not, is also to be ascertained during the course of investigation. The said disputed question of fact cannot be gone into by this Court in a petition filed for quash of the F.I.R. under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, this Court do not see any valid legal ground warranting its interference at this stage either to quash the F.I.R. or to interdict the investigation.
7. Therefore, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
However, as the offences registered against the petitioners are all punishable with less than seven (07) years period of imprisonment, the Investigation Officer is directed to follow the procedure contemplated under Section 41A Cr.P.C. and the guidelines prescribed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and another1 case.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, in this Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.
_____________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY Date : 11-12-2020 ARR 1 (2014) 8 SCC 273 3 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY CRIMINAL PETITION No.5725 OF 2020 Date : 11-12-2020 ARR