HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR Criminal Petition No.4849 of 2014 Date: 23-7-2014 Between K.Vineeth and 2 others … Petitioners/ Accused and The State of A.P., Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad … Respondent K.Atchuta Rao … Respondent/
De facto Complainant
HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR Criminal Petition No.4849 of 2014 Order:
The 2nd petitioner is the father of the 1st and the 3rd petitioners. The 2nd respondent filed a complaint against the petitioners and others which was registered as First Information Report (FIR) in Crime No.64 of 2014 by Satyanarayanapuram Police Station, Vijayawada City under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B read with Section 34 IPC. The petitioners sought for the quashment of the FIR claiming that prima facie case is not made against them.
2. The basic case of the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant is that the 2nd petitioner forged the signatures of the 2nd respondent and procured deposits of M/s. Anupama Finance Company in favour of the petitioners 1 and 2. Much water has flown under the bridge before the present complaint in FIR in Crime No.64 of 2014. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, however, contended that the 2nd respondent has come to know about the forgeries only on 15-11-2012 whereupon the 2nd respondent lodged the complaint.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners as well as several other depositors deposited their monies with M/s. Anupama Finance Company headed by the 2nd respondent. When the 2nd respondent failed to honour the deposits, the petitioners 1 and 3 approached the District Consumer Forum, Vijayawada seeking redressal.
The 2nd respondent remained ex parte before the Forum. The District Consumer Forum, Vijayawada allowed the petitions of petitioners 1 and 3.
4. The 2nd respondent did not honour the decrees. The petitioners consequently filed execution petitions under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The District Consumer Forum issued warrants of arrest. Questioning the same, the 2nd respondent filed civil revisions on 12-9-2009 before this Court. This Court granted interim stay through orders dated 13-9-2009. However, on 12-8-2011, the revisions were dismissed declaring that the 2nd respondent has alternative remedy of filing an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad under Section 17(1) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act.
5. The 2nd respondent consequently filed appeals before the State Commission on 21-8-2012. There was abnormal delay in filing the appeals. The State Commission granted interim stay in the appeals subject to deposit of 50% of the decretal amount before the State Commission. The 2nd respondent did not comply with the conditional stay. Consequently, the stay petitions were dismissed and the appeals were rejected.
6. The 2nd respondent, however, approached the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi which dismissed the appeals with punitive costs of Rs.20,000/-. The petitioners 1 and 3 thereafter tried to execute the orders. At that stage, the present complaint was lodged. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the very FIR is highly belated and is intended to overcome the orders of the District Consumer Forum. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that registering the FIR and trying to investigate the case is gross abuse of the process of law.
7. The 2nd respondent contended that his brother Sarathy and he ran several business ventures including printing, finance and leasing, chit fund and IMFL distribution and that the 2nd petitioner was an employee of the business conducted by the elder brother of the 2nd respondent along with the 2nd respondent. He further contended that his brother Sarathy suddenly died forcing the 2nd respondent and others to depend upon the 2nd petitioner for their business information. He claimed that taking advantage of the confidence reposed by the 2nd respondent upon the 2nd petitioner, the 2nd petitioner committed breach of trust and created forged documents to obtain illegal gain. He submitted that it would be inappropriate to scuttle the investigation at the threshold.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioners drew my attention to the fact that before the State Commission, the 2nd respondent filed an affidavit, inter alia, claiming that there was an attempt by the 2nd respondent to settle the disputes with the petitioners. There was no whisper in the affidavit that the petitioners 1 and 3 with the help of the 2nd petitioner created documents, committed breach of trust and cheated the 2nd respondent and his business ventures.
9. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, whereas the petitioners raised consumer dispute in 2009, the complaint was lodged on 25-01-2014. The explanation offered by the 2nd respondent is that he was not aware about the forgeries till ex parte decrees were passed by the Consumer Forum. Assuming that the 2nd respondent came to know about the forgeries when the ex parte decrees were passed, the 2nd respondent could have stated in his affidavit before the State Commission about the forgeries, when he laid petitions for the condonation of delay. The 2nd respondent has not chosen to do so. On the other hand, admittedly the 2nd respondent approached the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi. Even after the dismissal of the revisions by the National Commission in April 2013, the 2nd respondent waited till January 2014 to file the present complaint. I wholly agree that it would not be probable for the 2nd respondent to approach Police with such a complaint had his contention been true.
More important, he never raised such a defence at any point of time till he lodged the complaint. Patently, the complaint is filed with a view to overcome the execution of the decrees obtained by the petitioners before the Consumer Forum. I consider that such an attempt on the part of the 2nd respondent is tantamount to abuse of the process of law. The complaint therefore deserves to be quashed.
10. Accordingly, this criminal petition is allowed. The FIR in Crime No.64 of 2014 on the file of Satyanarayanapuram Police Station, Vijayawada City against the petitioners 1 to 3 is quashed.
The miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this petition shall stand closed.
Dr. K.G.SHANKAR, J.
23rd July, 2014. Ak HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR Criminal Petition No.4849 of 2014 23rd July, 2014. (Ak)