Criminal Petition No. 11459 of 2011. Case: N. Sridhar Vs State of A.P. and Another. High Court of Andhra Pradesh (India)
| Case Number | Criminal Petition No. 11459 of 2011 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Mr. V. Gopalakrishna Gokhale, Advocate and For Respondents: Mr. G. Srinivas Reddy, Party-in-Person/Advocate |
| Judges | K. C. Banu, J. |
| Issue | Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Sections 173, 190, 200, 482; Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) (IPC) - Section 166; Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 - Section 36(1); Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 - Sections 3, 4, 44(b), 5 |
| Citation | 2013 (1) ALT 316 (Cri) |
| Judgement Date | January 29, 2013 |
| Court | High Court of Andhra Pradesh (India) |
Order:
K. C. Banu, J.
-
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 662 of 2011 on the file of the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The second respondent herein filed a complaint under Section 200 read with 190 Cr.P.C. before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate against the petitioner herein, for the offence under Section 166 IPC alleging as follows.
He filed a private complaint in S.R. No. 489 of 2011, dated 21-1-2011 before the II Metropolitan Magistrate, L.B. Nagar Hyderabad, and the said court referred the matter to L.B. Nagar police, who registered it as a case in crime No. 193 of 2011, dated 31-1-2011; that the above complaint prima facie discloses that the accused therein misappropriated the amount to a tune of ` 30,81,97,625/-, which attracts the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 and Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the PML Act, 2002'), which comes under the purview of the office of the petitioner herein as an investigation authority, who is responsible for implementation of the provisions of the Act, 2002, that he gave a complaint on 7-2-2011 along with the private complaint vide S.R. No. 489/2011, dated 21-1-2011 to the petitioner to take appropriate steps to punish all the accused and recover all the proceedings of crime from all the accused in crime No. 193 of 2011 as per the provisions of the Act, 2002; that he also furnished copy of the First Information Report in crime No. 193 of 2011 to the petitioner; but the petitioner did not commence enquiry/investigation in crime No. 193 of 2011; that he also got issued notice dated 18-7-2011 to the petitioner to initiate appropriate proceedings on his complaint; that the petitioner received the notice on 19-7-2011, but there was no reply, and so, the acts of the petitioner would attract the offence under Section 166 IPC. Hence, the present complaint.
-
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the PML Act, 2002 requires that the Authorized officer conducts enquiry only after a report has been forwarded by police under Section 173 Cr.P.C. in respect of a scheduled offence; that the Enforcement Directory cannot investigate into the schedule offences under Part B of the Schedule; that immediately after receipt of the complaint from the second respondent, the petitioner enquiry with L.B. Nagar police with regard to details of the First Information Report, and the police informed that no offence has been made out and they are going to file a final report to that effect; that it is not a case where the court directed the petitioner to register...
To continue reading
Request your trial