MANNEM MOHAN RAO Vs. STATE OF A.P.
LAWS(APH)-2022-4-6
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on April 13,2022

Mannem Mohan Rao Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF A.P. Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

STATE OF HARYANA VS. BHAJAN LAL [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

K.SREENIVASA REDDY,J. - (1.) This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.973 of 2016 on the file of the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.
(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for 1st respondent-State.
(3.) Basing on a report lodged by 2nd respondent-informant, police registered a case in crime No.236 of 2016 of Governorpet police station, Vijayawada city, and after completion of investigation, laid charge sheet against the petitioner/A.3 and others for the offence punishable under Section 420 read with 34 IPC. The allegations in the charge sheet, in brief, may be stated as follows. A.1 approached L.Ws.2 to 5-M.Rama Devi, A.Durga, T.Mallikarjuna Rao and P.Sarada on various occasions, assured them that he would arrange personal loans, took them to State Bank of India, Gandhinagar branch on different dates and made them to open accounts. On 12.04.2016, A.1 took L.W.2-M.Rama Devi, who is none other than his elder sister, to Sonovision, a consumer goods retail shop situated at Arundalpet, Vijayawada, made her to sign on Application for Consumer Loan, collected a blank cheque duly signed, besides Id and address proofs and sent her away saying that she would get loan within two months. A.1 adopted same modus operandi in respect of other 4 persons. He submitted loan applications along with required documents like bank cheque and id and address proofs of said five persons in Sonovision Shop, made down payment and purchased AC machines, washing machines, TVs, etc., gave them to A.2 and took commission from her. Later, A.2 gave the product to petitioner-A.3 and took some commission. Later, petitioner-A.3 sold the product to customers and made money. As A.1 did not pay the monthly instalments to M/s. Capital First Finance, 2nd respondent-informant, who is Collection Manager of said firm, contacted the said five persons and asked them about non-payment of instalments, and the said persons stated that they did not purchase any products from Sonovision shop, and when they contacted A.1 through phone, he did not respond. Therefore, A.1 deceived the said persons in the guise of arranging personal loans, obtained their signatures on loan application forms, collected their Id and address proof and blank cheques duly signed, purchased different consumer products by making down payment in Sonovision Shop and sold the products to customers through A.2 and A.3, and all the accused got wrongful gain. The Capital First Finance paid the cost of the products to Sonovision Shop from where the consumer products were purchased. Hence, A.1 to A.3 caused wrongful loss to said firm and deceived the said five persons. ;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.