Sumalatha Pandiri v. The State Of Ap

THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER CRIMINAL PETITION No.2066 OF 2018 ORDER:

This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed by the petitioner-A.2 seeking to quash the proceedings against her in Crime No.43 of 2018 of Indrapalem Police Station, East Godavari District, registered for the offences under Sections 468, 471, 420 r/w 34 I.P.C.

2.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-A.2 and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent-State, apart from perusing the material on record.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner-A.2 would submit that there are specific allegations against A.1, but there are no allegations against the petitioner-A.2; the allegation is that the petitioner-A.2 accompanied A.1, who is her husband; and ultimately, prayed to allow the application.

4.

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the relief sought for by the petitioner-A.2.

5.

As per the material placed on record, the petitioner-A.2 is the wife of A.1. The petitioner-A.2 along with A.1 developed acquaintance with the de facto complainant through his friend by name Nallam Eswara Rao, who appraised the de facto complainant that the accused have executed business projects in South Africa, Ghana and other countries, their funds reached Reserve Bank of India, shown some documents to the de facto complainant and the petitioner-A.2 and A.1 require some capital for getting the funds released from the R.B.I. and assured the de facto complainant that they will pay 50% appreciation on the capital investment. In that process, they have collected a sum of Rs.6,00,000/-. After one

year, when the de facto complainant started asking return of money, the accused evaded the de facto complainant and ultimately, disclaimed the liability. There are also allegations that the accused have cheated some other persons and there are cases pending against the petitioner-accused No.2 and the documents shown to the de facto complainant in the name of R.B.I. were fake documents. A report lodged with the police to proceed against A.1 and the petitioner-A.2 under the above mentioned penal provisions. The investigation has to go on. There are no merits in this petition. The petitioner-A.2 is a woman, even it is not a ground to quash the proceedings.

6.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Pending Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ Dr. SHAMEEM AKTHER, J 22nd February, 2018 siva