Arupalla Sanjay Gandhi , Sanjay v. The State Of Ap.,Through

SMT JUSTI CE T. RAJANI CRI MI NAL PETI TI ON No.1 1 4 8 5 of 2 0 1 1 ORDER:

This petition is filed, by the petitioner/ A1, seeking for quash of the proceedings against him in C.C.No.1112 of 2009 on the file of the Court of X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at SEcunderabad.

2.

Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent. None appears for the 2nd respondent in spite of notice.

3.

The allegations against this petitioner, as per the charge sheet, are that on 01.11.2008 the complaint is filed stating that the petitioner started threatening and demanding huge amounts, by making false promises over telephone. During the course of his business activities the complainant approached the petitioner through one Mrs.Vasundhara Devi. The petitioner fraudulently made the complainant believe that he has to contribute Rs.4,67,000/ - as part of his share for getting the dubbing rights of the Telugu Movie into Tamil and rest assured of the profits. The original straight telugu movie itself has not seen any light till date , but still the petitioner induced him to take up the dubbing rights without showing any update for the telugu movie. Being not so knowledgable person in cinema field, the complainant gave his share of the amount. Subsequently, the dubbing rights have been changed to the remaking of the film. The petitioner

started demanding further amount of Rs.11,00,000/ - from the complainant though he signed the remaking agreement only as a witness, while Smt.Vasundhara Devi was the main signatory to the agreement.

The petitioner started demanding the differential amount only from the complainant and also started abusing him in filthy language. After exhausting the balance of savings money that the complainant had and when he told the petitioner that he cannot further finance, the petitioner started threatening him stating that he has contacts with naxalites. 4.

The averments in the petition are very categorical against the petitioner. The counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to state whether any cases were filed with regard to the dishonour of the cheques. Hence, going by the averments in the complaint, this court opines that this is not a fit case for quash of further proceedings.

5.

With the above observations, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. Interim stay granted by this court on ...shall stand vacated.

As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ T. RAJANI , J September 18, 2018 LMV