Telangana High Court
Macharla Vidyadevi D.Vidyadevi vs The State Of Telangana on 5 June, 2018
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. KESHAVA RAO
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 88 of 2018
ORDER:
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor for the first respondent. Though notice is served on the second respondent, she has not chosen to appear either in person or by engaging any counsel.
The present criminal revision case is filed aggrieved by orders dated 11.12.2017 passed in Crl.M.P.No.623 of 2016 in C.C.No.97 of 2011 on the file of the I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Warangal, dismissing the petition filed for discharging the petitioner.
The brief facts of the case are that the second respondent filed a private complaint against the petitioner and another for the offences of cheating, criminal breach of trust, furnishing of false information etc. Prior to filing of the complaint, the second respondent filed a suit for recovery of money against the petitioner and another and the same was coming up for trial. Due to her acquaintance with the family of A-1, he approached her and requested to give her property documents to get a loan from the bank for construction of hospital at Warangal with a promise to return the same within two or three months. Pursuant thereto, the second respondent gave the house documents situated at Shiva Nagar. In the year 2004 the bank issued a notice to the second respondent for repayment of loan amount and when she asked A-1, he promised to pay. In the year 2006 on the request of A-1, she 2 paid an amount of Rs.5,81,000/- and released the documents from the bank. It is said that at the relevant time, A-1 and the petitioner executed a document in writing by undertaking to repay the said amount, but not paid the amount. Therefore, she was constrained to file the suit for recovery of money and obtained attachment before judgment. After filing of the civil suit, it is alleged that A-1 and the petitioner threatened her on phone with dire consequences if the suit is not withdrawn. Therefore, a complaint was lodged with the police. However, the said complaint was not received by the police on the ground that the matter is civil in nature. Therefore, the second respondent filed a private complaint before the I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Warangal and the same was referred to the police. Pursuant thereto, a crime was registered vide F.I.R. No.41 of 2010 of Police Station, Mills Colony, Waragnal. After investigation, the concerned police have filed final report reporting that the issue is completely a money matter and civil suit is pending in the Court of law. Therefore, the police referred the case as 'civil in nature'. Aggrieved by the said report, the second respondent filed a protest petition vide Crl.M.P.No.1992 of 2010. After hearing, the same was allowed by the learned Magistrate by orders dated 11.04.2011. Before allowing the said petition, the Court below recorded the statements of PWs.1 and 2. Basing on the same, cognizance of the offences was taken under Sections 420, 417, 172, 173 and 506 IPC and the complaint was numbered as C.C.No.97 of 2011. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner originally filed a petition vide Crl.M.P.No.623 of 2016 to discharge her for the charges leveled against her in C.C.No.97 of 3 2011. The Court below by docket order dated 23.06.2017 dismissed the said petition. Aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioner filed Crl.R.C.No.2515 of 2017 in this Court. After hearing, this Court was pleased to allow the said criminal revision case remitting the matter to the trial Court to dispose of the application in accordance with law since the impugned order was a cryptic order without any reasons. After remand, the Court below heard the matter afresh. However, the Court below once again dismissed the petition by order dated 11.12.2017. Aggrieved by the said orders, the present criminal case is filed.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the trial Court ought not to have taken the cognizance of the offences against the petitioner since no prima facie case is made out. Even as per the statements of PWs.1 to 3 recorded under Section 244 Cr.P.C., no case is made out. In fact, the basic ingredients of Sections 420, 417, 172, 173 and 506 IPC are not made out and therefore, the trial Court ought to have allowed the petition discharging the petitioner from the charges alleged against her. In fact, the learned counsel further emphasized that all the allegations made in the complaint and in the statements recorded under Section 244 Cr.P.C. are only against A-1 who died subsequent to filing of the complaint. He also further contended that he has not executed any document along with A-1 in favour of the second respondent. The petitioner signed on the promissory note as surety and she is absolutely nothing to do with the transaction entered into between the second respondent and A-1.
4
Perusal of the material on record would indicate that the petitioner stood as surety for the promissory note on 26.07.2006. Except the said allegation, there is no other allegation against the petitioner in the private complaint lodged by the second respondent. However, when her statement was recorded under Section 244 Cr.P.C. for the first time the second respondent has stated that in the month of December, 2009 at 4 P.M. A-1 and A-2 threatened her on phone with dire consequences if the suit filed by her is not withdrawn. Except the said one statement, there is absolutely nothing on record to show that the petitioner has got any role to play in the transaction entered into between second respondent and A-1. It appears that since police have filed a final report referring the case as 'civil in nature' and to avoid the same, the second respondent for the first time stated in her statement that in the month of December, 2009 at 4 p.m. A-1 and the petitioner threatened her on phone. A further perusal of the impugned orders would also indicate that the Court below have entirely relied on the incident alleged to have taken place in the month of December, 2009 about threatening of second respondent. However, the second respondent has not produced any material on record to show that in the month of December, 2009 after making the alleged call by A-1 and the petitioner, some persons entered into her house and threatened her to withdraw the civil suit. Therefore, viewing from any angle, no prima facie case is made out for framing charges against the petitioner herein to proceed further in the case.
5
The approach to the issue of framing charge has to be pragmatic. Insistence merely on completing the formalities results in putting an innocent person to trial. Thus, the charge should not be framed in cases where the available material does not disclose the ingredients of the offence. Framing of charge in such cases is an exercise in futility and results in wasting valuable time of the Court. In these circumstances, the continuation of proceedings and asking the petitioner to face the rigmarole of trial would amount to abuse of process of court. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner do not stand to legal scrutiny and there is no prima facie case to frame charges against the petitioner.
Accordingly, the criminal revision case is allowed discharging the petitioner for the charges leveled against her.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal revision case shall stand closed.
__________________ P. KESHAVA RAO, J Date:05.06.2018 CCM/ISL 6 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. KESHAVA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.88 of 2018 Date:05.06.2018 ccm