CRLP/1257/2009 of Julapalli Eswar Vasundhara Devi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, on 31 December 2010

O R D E R:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., forquashing the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.314 of 2008 onthe file of the XI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad,Hyderabad.

Heard the counsel for the petitioner. No representation on behalf ofthe State.

The averments made in the charge sheet filed in C.C.No.314 of2008 are that on 23.11.2006, the Assistant Commissioner (Gr-1), workingin the office of Regional Commissioner, Coal Mines Provident Fund,Government of India, Ministry of Coal, Hyderabad lodged a written reportwith Saroornagar Police Station against the petitioner and seven others. The report alleges that the Andhra Bank, Bhupalpalli Branch, Warangal,informed their office that the Bank had received two cheques from theoffice of CMPFO drawn on Andhra Bank, Kothapet Branch, Hyderabad inthe name of B.Lingaiah, Senior Mining Sardar working at KTK-6 incline ofSingareni Company Limited, and they have doubted that those chequeshave been obtained by fraud. Then the office of CMPFO verified and foundthat no person by name B.Lingaiah is working at KTK-6 incline ofSingareni Co.Ltd., and the application form for withdrawal of ledgeraccounts are also false. They found A-1 to be indulged in the allegedoffence and the transactions are being done in the name of A-2 to A-7through different bank accounts. The total amount siphoned from the CMPFO is Rs.1,09,88,900/-. The recovered amount is Rs.63,06,900/- andRs.46,82,000/- is yet to be recovered. A-1 played a key role in fabricating,cheating and forging documents in the name of A-2 to A-7 with anintention to grab money. The petitioner-A-8 is the wife of A-1 encouragedher husband to earn money in easy methods. Therefore, as per theaverments made in the charge sheet, the allegation made against thepetitioner, who is the wife of the main culprit in the above said offence, isthat she knowingly encouraged her husband to do the alleged offence toearn money in easy method and she is liable for punishment underSection 109 of IPC.

Section 109 of IPC reads as under:

“Whoever abets any offence shall, if the act abetted iscommitted in consequence of the abetment, and no expressprovision is made by this Code for the punishment of suchabetment, be punished with the punishment provided for theoffence”.

Section 107 of the IPC deals with abatement and it reads as under:

“A person abets in doing of a thing, who firstlyinstigates any person to do that thing, or secondly engageswith one or more other person or persons in any conspiracyfor the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takesplace in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to thedoing of that thing; or thirdly, intentionally aids, by any act orillegal omission, in doing of that thing.”

Therefore, in order to attract Section 109 of IPC, the prosecutionhas to establish that the petitioner instigated A.1 for committing theoffence. But the averments made in the charge sheet does not discloseany instigation made by A.8 to A.1 for committing the offence. Therefore,the averments made in the charge sheet does not disclose the commission of offence under Section 109 against A.8. Hence, she isentitled for quashing of the proceedings initiated against her inC.C.No.314 of 2008.

Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings inC.C.No.314 of 2008 on the file of the XI Additional MetropolitanMagistrate, Cyberabad, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed.

31[st] December, 2010

_____________________

JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD

PNV