HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Crl.R.C.No.2556 of 2013 Date: 22.04.2014 Between:
V. Raja Reddy … Petitioner/ A.1 AND Dr. D.V. Dnaeshwari, D/o. V. Bapu Reddy, and another. … Respondents HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Crl.R.C.No.2556 of 2013 ORDER:
The order of the learned III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in Crl. M.P.No.675 of 2013 in C.C.No.772 of 2011 dated 06.11.2013 is assailed by A.1 in C.C.No.772 of 2011. A.1 preferred Crl. M.P.
No. 675 of 2013 under Section 239 Cr.P.C. for his discharge. Through the impugned order, the Miscellaneous Petition was dismissed. Hence, the present revision.
2. Sri T. Bala Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner/A.1 contended that there is no complicity on the part of the petitioner in the commission of the offence and that the petitioner unnecessarily is arrayed as an accused along with A.2 & A.3.
3. A private complaint was lodged by the complainant/first respondent herein against three persons including the petitioner herein. It is the case of the complainant that the first accused is known to the family of the complainant and that he induced the complainant to enter into a transaction with the firm run by A.2 & A.3 informing the complainant that A.1 is a partner of the firm of A.2 & A.3. A.2 is a builder. A.3 is the owner of the property over which building was proposed to be constructed by A.2. A.1 is said to be a Non-Resident Indian (NRI) Engineer. The complainant alleges that A.1 is a mediator between the complainant on the one side and A.2 & A.3 on the other side.
The complainant alleged that she had paid Rs.11 lakhs to A.2. She also submitted that A.1 attested the development agreement between A.2 & A.3 on the one side and the complainant on the other side and that A.1 connived with A.2 & A.3 to commit offences against the complainant under Sections 420, 425, 445, 461, 477-A and 499 (1) read with Section 34 IPC.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner/A.1 submitted that mere attesting development agreement cannot expose the petitioner to criminal liability.
He submitted that the petitioner has nothing to do with the transaction between A.2 & A.3 on the one side and complainant on the other side and that if A.2 & A.3 committed any offences, it is for the complainant to take appropriate action against A.2 & A.3. So far as the petitioner/A.1 is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent of the offences levelled against him.
5. Sri R. Yogender Singh, learned counsel for the first respondent/complainant submitted that when the petitioner paid Rs.11 lakhs to A.2 towards advance payment, A.1 received Rs.2 lakhs out of the same.
The learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand submitted that indeed A.1 received Rs.2 lakhs from A.2 and that it, however, was a loan and not part of the money paid by the complainant to A.2.
6. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the first respondent, this question arises for consideration at the time of trial only and not in a petition u/s.239 Cr.P.C.
7. The learned counsel for the first respondent/complainant further submitted that in the reply dated 20.07.2010 given by A.1 to the notice of the complainant, A.1 stated that he did not know A.2 & A.3. On the other hand, it would appear that A.1 stated before the Consumer Forum that he received Rs.2 lakhs from A.2; as already pointed out, A.1 now contends that the Rs.2 lakhs received by him from A.2 was a loan.
In any event, it is not as though A.1 is a stranger to A.2 from the fact that A.1 could borrow monies from A.2.
8. Regarding the complicity of A1 in the commission of the offence, the admitted facts are that the petitioner entered into the development agreement with A.2 & A.3 and that A.1 attested the same. Further, A.1 admittedly borrowed Rs.2 lakhs from A.2. Taking note of these two factors, the trial Court considered that it is not a fit case to discharge A.1 before framing of the charges. I wholly agree with the finding of the learned trial Judge. I see no error in the observation of the trial Court.
9. Consequently, the Criminal Revision case is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending in this revision, shall stand closed.
K.G. SHANKAR, J Date: 22.04.2014 Isn