Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Ram Singh vs State Of Ap on 3 September, 2019
Author: U.Durga Prasad Rao
Bench: U. Durga Prasad Rao
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO
Criminal Petition No.3726 of 2019
ORDER:
1. In this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner- A2 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.
4. Severely fulminating the complaint allegations as false, learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that the petitioner-A2 has nothing to do with Future Maker Life Care Private Limited, run by his brother, and petitioner is not holding any post in the said company. Except following his brother to contact an advocate in respect of the legal issues relating to the present case, the petitioner has absolutely nothing to do with the company or the affairs of his brother and even as per F.I.R. he did not receive amounts from the complainant. He was unnecessarily implicated in the case. He further argued that even if the F.I.R. allegations are presumed to be true, they at best reveal the civil liability in as much as the accused have received amounts from the complainant and did not repay in the form of higher returns. Therefore, the registration of F.I.R. is unsustainable under law. To buttress his argument, he placed reliance on Ashok Kalla v. State of Punjab1.
5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition on advancing the arguments that A1 is the C.M.D. of Future Maker Life Care Private Limited and petitioner-A2 is his brother and both of them induced the general public to invest amounts in their company and naively believing their version, the complainant and his friend went to their Head Office at Hissar in Haryana and met both of them and they explained him about the scheme of the deposits and they induced him to pay an advance of Rs.20,000/- and accordingly he paid the amount and after return to his native place also he paid amounts through online from time-to-time totalling Rs.5.25 lakhs. Learned Public Prosecutor would vehemently contend that the petitioner-A2 being the brother of C.M.D. of the company played a prominent role along with A1 in inducing the complainant to deposit amounts. Therefore, it is 1 (1990) 1 RCR (Cri) 45 preposterous for him to contend that he has noting to do with the company affairs. Learned Public Prosecutor would submit that investigation is in crucial stage to unearth the facts as to how many others were cheated in the hands of the accused. He thus prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. The point for consideration is where there are merits in the petition to allow?
7. POINT: As can be seen from the F.I.R., it is the case of the complainant that on knowing through a pamphlet circulated through Eenadu newspaper by the Future Maker Life Care Private Limited, the complainant and his friend went to the Head office of the company in Hissar town in Haryana State and there they met both A1 and petitioner-A2 also. In Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the complainant, it is mentioned that A1 is the C.M.D. and petitioner-A2 is his brother and one Bansilal Sinha is the M.D. of the aforesaid company. All of them explained about their business plans and money deposit schemes and induced that if investments are made in their company, the depositors would get high returns. As per the words of A1, A2 and Bansilal Sinha, if a person makes an initial deposit of Rs.7,500/-, he will be given customer ID/Agent. If such agent inducts two customers, he would be paid @ Rs.2,500/- for 24 months. If he inducts 20 customers, he would get additional reward of Rs.5,000/- and a star rank. Similarly, if the agent inducts 40 customers, he would be paid Rs.8,000/- as reward and a silver star. If he introduces 6,00,000 customers, he would be paid Rs.10.00 Crores as reward and a double Kohinoor rating. It is alleged that naively believing their words, the petitioner deposits Rs.5.25 lakhs and his known persons also deposited amounts and they were ultimately cheated by the accused. Thus, the F.I.R. reveals a strong prima facie case not only against A1, but also A2. Whether the petitioner holds any post in Future Maker Life Care Private Limited or not can be decipherable only after a thorough investigation. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that both the brothers and their company cheated the gullible customers not only in Haryana, but also throughout the country and a large scale investigation is pending against them. In view of the aforesaid facts, the F.I.R. cannot be quashed against the petitioner-A2. The decision relied will not advance the cause of petitioner. In that case, it was held that mere refusal to refer the money to the depositors on due date in respect of double money saving scheme may at best amount to breach of contract which is a civil liability and therefore, F.I.R. in such cases is liable to be quashed on the ground of civil liability and prosecution being barred by limitation. The instant case is not only a mere non-payment of double the amount, but also cheating the people in a chain reaction. Further, the company was closed and accused absconded.
Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________ U.DURGA PRASAD RAO, J 03.09.2019 MVA