Pentela Sivaramaiah & Ors. v. State of Andrha Pradesh & Ors.

This Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed by the petitioners – accused Nos.1 to 3 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in Crime No.142 of 2007 of Martur Police Station, Prakasam District registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406 & 408 read with 34 IPC.

The case of the petitioners is that petitioner No.1 is doing rice business and he owns a rice mill also. Petitioner No.2 is his wife and petitioner No.3 is his father. Petitioner No.1 availed various credit facilities from respondent No.3 - State Bank of India for the business purpose and the outstanding amount came to Rs.22,49,872/-. He mortgaged the rice mill and other landed properties with respondent No.3. While so, due to drought conditions, he suffered huge loss and could not repay the loan amounts to respondent No.3. On 04-01-2006, respondent No.3 sent a proposal for one time settlement and fixed minimum amount as Rs.18,08,055-76 paise. On 23-03-2006, petitioner No.1 gave reply stating that he is prepared for one time settlement for an amount of Rs.11,00,000/-. In the meanwhile, respondent No.3 issued notice to petitioner No.1 under Section 13 (2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘Securitization Act’) demanding him to pay the full amount. Respondent No.3 also took possession of the rice mill and other landed properties of the petitioner No.1 and issued pamphlets that the same will be put to auction on 19-9-2007. On the same day, petitioner No.1 made a representation to respondent No.3 stating that he is ready to pay Rs.15,00,000/- as one time settlement. But, he was not informed whether the properties were put to auction in pursuance of auction notice on 19-9-2007. In the first week of January 2008, petitioner No.1 to know that respondent No.4, Enforcement Agents of respondent No.3 gave the present complaint against them and 2 others.

Heard both sides.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that prima facie offences under sections 406 & 408 have not been made out and therefore, continuation of proceedings is nothing but abuse of process of law. He further contended that the de facto complainant, respondent No.4 herein, suspects that the petitioners involved in the sale of certain properties, that the petitioners have dominion over the properties, that suspicion may not be a ground to convict the accused and that it cannot be a ground to proceed with the investigation.

As seen from the complaint, some of the articles, which were attached, were taken away by the petitioners along with the Security Guards and sold away the same. As such, prima facie case is made out to proceed with the investigation. Therefore, the question of quashing the proceedings does not arise.