Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
V Venkata Simhadri Sri Vishnu vs State Of Haryana on 13 February, 2025
Author: B Krishna Mohan
Bench: B Krishna Mohan
APHC010130192019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3233]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN
Crl.P.Nos.2754, 2758, 2759 & 2768 of 2019 and W.P.No.131 of 2014
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2754/2019
Between:
V Venkata Simhadri Sri Vishnu ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S)
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2758/2019 Between:
Vommi Ram Murthy Chits and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2759/2019 Between:
V V Simhadri Sri Vishnu ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) 2 CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2768/2019 Between:
Vommi Ram Murthy Chits and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
1. C SINDHU KUMARI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR WRIT PETITION NO: 131/2014 Between:
Vommi Rama Murty Chits And Investments (pvt) Ltd, and ...PETITIONER(S) Others AND State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. C SINDHU KUMARI Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR HOME
2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 3 The Court made the following Common Order:
In all these Criminal Petitions, the common prayer is that to quash the C.C.Nos.1 & 2 of 2008 on the file of Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum- Special Court for Protection of Andhra Pradesh Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999, Visakhapatnam and J.C.C.Nos.204 and 107 of 2008 on the file of Juvenile Justice Board, Visakhapatnam.
2. The learned Senior Counsel Sri S.S.Prasad appearing for the petitioners submits that the Cr.Nos.21 of 2005, 355 and 356 of 2005 were registered by the V Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam under Sections 406, 420, 120B IPC and under Section 5 of Depositors Act, R/w Section 56 of the Chit Funds Act, 1971. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheets were filed before the Court of Metropolitan Sessions Judge and Special Judge to try the cases under A.P.Protection of Depositors and Financial Establishments Act, 1999, Visakhapatnam and before the Juvenile Justice Board, Visakhapatnam. The cases were registered as C.C.Nos.1 & 2 of 2005 on the file of Metropolitan Sessions Judge and Special Judge to try the cases under A.P.Protection of Depositors and Financial Establishments Act, 1999, Visakhapatnam and J.C.C.Nos.107 & 204 of 2008 on the file of Juvenile Justice Board, Visakhapatnam.
(a) As per the charge sheets, the total amount that was received by the petitioners mostly on the basis of promissory notes was Rs.26,97,58,185/-. The total number of persons paid the money as per the 4 charge sheet are 946. The competent authority under the Depositors Act representing the prosecution, depositors and the petitioners herein arrived at settlement under which the individual persons who paid the money to the petitioners should be paid off with interest accrued up to 2005 when the crimes were registered towards full and final settlement of all their claims against the petitioners.
(b) Pursuant to the aforesaid settlement, the competent authority filed Crl.M.P.No.2257 of 2006 and 2258 of 2016 in C.C.Nos.1 & 2 of 2005 and the Special Court appointed a retired District Judge as Commissioner to act on behalf of the Court for the purpose of verifying the claims of the individuals and to their entitlement and to prepare a list of such eligible persons who are entitled for repayment vide order dated 02.08.2016. The learned Commissioner verified all the claims and submitted a report dated 17.04.2017 inter alia stating that there were around 2657 persons who are claiming the money. The said report was accepted by the Special Court by order dated 17.04.2017. The competent authority pursuant to the said settlement, filed another application in Crl.M.P.No.1234 of 2016 under Section 6(4) of the Depositors Act. The Special Court by order dated 17.04.2017 allowed the said application and directed the learned Commissioner to disburse the amounts to the legitimate claimants as per the above said report submitted by the Commissioner. Accordingly, all the claimants received their money due in full and final settlement of all their claims against the petitioners, submitted duly verified affidavits to that effect 5 and surrendered their documents like promissory notes on the basis of which they made their claims.
(c) As per the above said orders of the Special Court dated 17.04.2017, the Commissioner settled the claims and paid to the 2531 claimants in full and final settlement of all their claims. However, he further stated that about 132 persons could not be paid for various reasons like non- availability of the person, or formalities not complied with or loss of their promissory notes or shifted their addresses or whereabouts are not known. The amounts due Rs.1,25,56,636/- was deposited with the competent authority in the S.B.I.
(d) For the above said developments in the above said cases that are pending before the Special Court under the above said enactment, the further continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners would be a futile exercise and it would lead to the miscarriage of justice as the petitioners' liability was duly discharged by disbursing the entitled money for the depositors by the Commissioner appointed by the Special Court. As the list of witnesses have no grievance against the petitioners/ accused there would not be any situation for seeking conviction of these petitioners even under the above said special enactment. Hence, the petitioners are seeking justice under Section 48 of the Cr.P.C. before this Hon'ble Court. 6
(e) To substantiate his contention, he relies upon the decisions reported in B.S.Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana 1 , Gold Quest International Private Ltd. Vs. State of Tamilnadu2, K.Bharathi Devi and another vs. State of Talangana and another 3 wherein their Lordships consistently held that such exercise of continuation of transaction would remain as a futile exercise, as the matters comprehensively, fully and finally settled between the parties which are basically arising out of the commercial transactions and in default of the same, the consequential crimes were registered in those cases, ultimately, in view of the settlements they were ended in quashing of the charge sheets. He also refers to the decisions on similar lines reported in Nikhil Merchant vs. C.B.I.4, Parabhat Bhai Aahir alias Parabhatbhai Bhisminibhai Karmur and others vs. State of Gujarat5 and Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Sadhu Ram Singla and others6
3. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents submits that, it is true that the above settlement was made and majority of them were cleared with all the dues towards their full and final settlement and for the balance left over persons of 132, their interest may be protected. For which it is very clear that even according to 1 2003 (4) SCC 675 2 2014 (15) SCC 235 3 2024 (10) SCC 384 4 2008 (9) SCC 677 5 2017 (9) SCC 641 6 2017 (5) SCC 350 7 the arrangement made by the Commissioner with the consent of the Special Court, the above said balance amount was deposited with the competent authority covering the interest of those 132 persons and in case whenever they approach, they would get their due amount in accordance with law subject to following the due procedure.
4. Taking into consideration of the above said facts and circumstances, reasoning and the settled legal position as held in the above said decisions, it is a fit case to quash the above said pending cases against the petitioners before the Special Court to avoid the miscarriage of justice.
5. Accordingly, the Crl.P.Nos.2754, 2758, 2759 & 2768 of 2019 are allowed quashing the above said cases. Consequently, in view of allowing of the Criminal Petitions, no further orders are necessary in the writ petition. Accordingly, the W.P.No.131 of 2014 is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________ JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN 13.02.2025 NNN