HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR
Criminal Petition No.14765 of 2013
Date: 12.08.2014 Between:
Dr. Padmanjali, W/o. Srinivasa Tagore, and 2 others. .. Petitioners/ A.1 to A.3 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad, and another. .. Respondents HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR
Criminal Petition No.14765 of 2013
ORDER:
The petitioners seek for the quashment of C.C.No.420 of 2013 on the file of XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar.
2. Be it noted that the first petitioner is living in USA and is represented by her General Power of Attorney. The petitioners are A.1 to A.3 in C.C.No.420 of 2013. The second respondent is the de facto complainant.
3. A charge sheet was laid by police against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 420 and 406 IPC on a complaint lodged by the second respondent. The basic contention of the second respondent is that the petitioners misused the funds of the second respondent by fraudulently inducing the second respondent to part with the money.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the alleged misappropriation or cheating are not true and the money in question is lying with the bank and the second respondent certainly would be welcome to the bank. The first petitioner is the wife of the second respondent. The second respondent deposited $ 80,000 dollars and the first petitioner agreed to maintain their minor daughter. The first petitioner and the second respondent have entered into an agreement in those terms. The second respondent, however, contended that the petitioners have no intention to abide by the settlement and that the petitioners not only cheated the second respondent, but also committed breach of trust.
5. The petitioners admitted the relationship and other allegations, but contended that there was never an intention on the part of the petitioners to cheat or commit criminal breach of trust. I am afraid that the questions arising in this criminal petition are pure questions of fact, which cannot be determined in a quash petition. I therefore consider that it would be appropriate for the petitioners to face the trial. However, where the first petitioner is in USA, the second petitioner is a senior citizen medical practitioner and the third petitioner is a lady, I consider it appropriate to dispense with their presence at the time of trial.
6. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of requesting the trial Court to proceed with the trial of the case. The trial Court shall not insist upon the presence of the petitioners before the trial Court during the hearings of the case. The trial Court, however, is at liberty to insist upon the personal appearance of the petitioners on any occasion if the trial Court considers it necessary for the petitioners to present themselves before the trial Court. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.
Dr. K.G. Shankar, J.
Date: 12.08.2014 Isn