Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Smt. Chikkala Swarna Priya vs State Of A.P on 17 April, 2023
THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI
Criminal Revision Case No.638 of 2022
ORDER:
This criminal revision case is preferred against the order, dated 19.04.2022, dismissing Crl.M.P.No.25 of 2022 in C.C.No.1 of 2021 on the file of the Court of Principal District & Sessions Judge, Srikakulam, filed under Section 239 CrPC seeking discharge.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner/A13 and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State.
3. The case of the petitioner in support of the petition seeking discharge, in brief, is as follows:
The crime was initially registered for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC by II Town Police Station, Srikakulam. After investigation, the accused was charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 406 and 420 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 5 of the Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999. The de facto complainant was made to believe that the deposit of Rs.1,00,000/- would fetch Rs.20,000/-
monthly interest i.e., @ 20% per month and the amount will be doubled by 100 days, and thereby, made him to deposit Rs.1,00,000/-. They had given post-dated cheques and on 2 BSB, J Crl.R.C.No.638 of 2022 presentation, those cheques were bounced. The de facto complainant did not make any specific overt act against the petitioner/accused regarding her complicity in the alleged crime except stating that the petitioner along with others used to collect money from the customers in the capacity of agent and used to keep the amount in her house in order to give the same to the Managing Director. The only allegation against the petitioner is that she along with Subhadra fully cooperated in financial transactions. A cumulative reading of all the allegations made in the FIR and the charge sheet even if taken into consideration on their face value, they do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
4. The prosecution opposed the petition stating that the petitioner along with other accused misappropriated the deposited amounts of gullible public and purchased several moveable and immovable properties. The petitioner misused the position of her father who is Branch Manager of the accused company and collected deposits as agent with a mala fide intention to cheat the public. The petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. On merits, the trial Court dismissed the petition observing that the later part of the investigation disclose that the role of the 3 BSB, J Crl.R.C.No.638 of 2022 petitioner/A13 in the commission of the offence would be decided at a later point of time after full-fledged trial and it is premature to conclude anything regarding the role of the petitioner in the commission of the offence.
6. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner/A13 preferred this revision raising the following grounds: There is no prima facie case against the petitioner/A13 and the evidence collected do not disclose commission of any of the offences with which she is charged; that the trial Court failed to follow any of the cardinal principles reiterated by the apex Court time and again in the catena of decisions, that none of the witnesses examined during the course of investigation stated that any of them paid cash either to the petitioner or at her instance to any other persons, and as such, continuance of prosecution against the petitioner will be a futile exercise.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no evidence at all against the petitioner for the alleged offences and further that the petitioner is only an employee in the bank, but only to coerce her father to come to terms, she has been falsely implicated. It is further submitted that even if the allegations and the evidence are taken on their face value, no offence can be made 4 BSB, J Crl.R.C.No.638 of 2022 out as against the petitioner. Therefore, it is submitted that continuation of proceedings in C.C.No.1 of 2021 insofar as this petitioner is concerned would cause irreparable loss and great hardship to her.
8. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the petition submitting that the witnesses, LWs 1 to 10, 32, 33, 34, and 35 have clearly spoken against the petitioner as well, stating that she used to collect the amount and as such evidence is sufficient to frame charges and if at all there is no evidence that comes out during the course of trial, it is a matter to be appreciated by the trial Court and it is not a case to discharge the petitioner and that the trial Court has rightly dismissed the petition.
9. The case was registered for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 403 read with 34 IPC and Section 5 of APPDFE Act, 1989. The prosecution witnesses stated that the petitioner used to sit in the office along with her father and take amounts collected in deposits to their house. It is also stated by the witnesses that she worked as an agent with Subhadra. Since she has been accused not just in her individual capacity but also under Section 34 IPC, it is not the stage to conclude that no offence was made out for the offences in respect of which charge sheet was filed. Since the matter requires 5 BSB, J Crl.R.C.No.638 of 2022 trial, it is not a case fit to discharge. Hence, there is no merit in the revision.
10. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________ B.S.BHANUMATHI, J 17.04.2023 RAR