V. Soumya

1

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT KHAMMAM

Dated this the 15th day of July, 2019

Present: Ms Sowmya Vardha III Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First class, Khammam.

C.C.No. 324 / 2014 (Cr.No.144/2014 of Khammam III Town P.S.) Between:-

The State Police through Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Khammam III Town. ……Complainant

and

A1) Kommera Ravi Kumar, S/o.Nageswara Rao, Age: 32 years, Occ: Insurance Agent, R/o.Srinivasanagar, Khammam.

A2) Bandi Srilatha, W/o.Kommera Ravi Kumar, Age: 28 years, Occ: Insurance Agent, R/o.Srinivasanagar, Khammam.

……..Accused No.1 and 2.

This case is coming before me on 09.07.2019 for final hearing in the presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor for State; and of Sri J.Sharath Kumar Reddy, Advocate for Accused, upon perusing the material papers on record, on hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a case arising out of charge-sheet filed by the

Sub-Inspector of Police, Khammam III Town P.S. against the A1 and A2 in

Cr.No.144/2014 for the offence punishable U/Secs.420 r/w 34 IPC.

2. In brief, the prosecution case is that, the complainant / PW.1 had purchased Hyundai I.20 Sports model card bearing No.AP28-DR-8997 in the year 2013 and paid vehicle insurance for the year 2013-14 which was expired on 06.01.2014, the complainant for renewal of his policy, he contacted the accused who is the agent of insurance company and invited him to his house for renewal of his policy, the complainant made initial payment of Rs.1,500/- and deposited another Rs.22,000/- on 13.01.2014 in 2 the agent / accused account No.06311140000664. On the same day, the accused sent the policy cover on the name of Royal Sundaram Alliance

Insurance Company Limited to PW.1’s E-mail I.D., and such policy cover is valid from 13.01.2014 to 12.01.2015 mid night. Later, to his misfortune, the complainant / PW.1 met with an accident on 22.02.2014 while he was travelling from Hyderabad to Khammam. Immediately after the accident, he came to Khammam and met the accused, shown the photographs of his damaged car which was taken in his mobile phone and requested the accused to make a claim under the insurance. The accused obtained

Rs.35,000/- from the complainant and taken the PW.1 signature on bond papers to attend the repairs and also to claim the insurance amount from the company. Later, PW.1 came to knew that the accused did not pay the amount of Rs.22,000/- which was paid to him on 13.01.2014 for insurance policy and he paid on 22.02.2014 and obtained one more policy cover from the company with effect from 22.02.2014 to 21.02.2015 by showing the earlier on-line insurance policy which was handed over to the complainant, was fake and prepared bill to claim the insurance, but the damage occurred in the said accident made by PW.1 by showing the wrong accident date as 03.03.2014 instead of 22.02.2014, for which the complainant claim was rejected with a reason the amount was not deposited to the company and the accident date was shown wrongly.The accused cheated him by non-payment of insurance amount for renewal of insurance policy in due time inspite of collecting the amount from the complainant and also furnished fake insurance policy certificate. Further, to cover his mistakes, he made a claim by showing the wrong date of accident and caused

Rs.1,50,000/- loss to the complainant and he thereby cheated the complainant for which the complainant approached the police station and lodged a report against the accused on 12.07.2014.

3

3.On receipt of the report, PW-8/S.I., of police, Khammam III Town

PS, registered a case in Cr.No.144/2014 for the offence U/Sec.420 I.P.C., and issued FIR to all concerned and examined and recorded the statements of

PW.1. On 13.07.2014 PW.8 visited the scene of offence, prepared CDF in the presence of PW.5 and PW.6, secured the presence of witnesses PW.2 and

PW.3, examined and recorded their statements. Later obtained connected documents through PW.4 and recorded his statement.

4.On 06.09.2014 at 16.00 hours, on credible information, PW.7 apprehended the A2 and on interrogation, she voluntarily confessed the guilt of the offence along with A1 and she was remanded to judicial custody.

On 10.09.2014 A1 was surrendered before the Hon’ble Court as per the direction of Hon’ble High Court and released on bail vide

Crl.MP.No.2301/2014 vide Dis.No.874, dated 10.09.2014. On completion of

entire investigation the P.W.8 filed charge sheet against the A1 and A2 for the offence punishable U/Sec.420 r/w 34 IPC. Hence, the charge sheet.

5. This case was taken on file for the offence U/Sec.420 r/w 34 IPC, against the A1 and A2 and process of summons were issued.

6. On appearance of the A1 and A2 before the court, copies of documents upon which the prosecution proposed to be relied upon, were furnished to them as required U/sec. 207 Cr.P.C.

7. The accused A1 and A2 were examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C., the substance of accusation for the offence U/Sec.420 r/w 34 IPC, against the

A1 and A4, read over and explained to them in Telugu to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4

8. In order to prove the guilty of the accused, the prosecution examined

Pws-1 to 8 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P11 on its behalf. On the other hand, Ex.D1 to D3 are marked on behalf of defense.

9. After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused A1 and A2 were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the incriminating oral and documentary evidences adduced by the prosecution against them and reported no defence evidence.

10.Heard both sides arguments.

11.Now the point for consideration is;

“whether the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of the

accused A1 and A2 for the offences u/Sec.420 r/w 34 I.P.C.,

beyond all reasonable doubt or not?”

12.POINT :

In order to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable u/Sec.420 r/w 34 IPC, the prosecution altogether examined (8) witnesses, out of which, PW-1 is the defacto complainant; PW.2 and PW.3 are the elders and circumstantial witnesses, PW.4 is the Manager of Royal

Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, PW.5 and PW.6 are the mediators to the scene of offence panchanama, PW.7 and PW.8 are the investigation officers in this case and marked the documents Ex.P1 to P11 on behalf of the prosecution and Ex.D1 to D3 on behalf of the defense.

13.According to the prosecution, the accused A1 and A2 who are the agents of Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, cheated the PW.1 by issuing a fake and false policy cover valid from 13.01.2014 to 5 12.01.2015, due to which, his claim was rejected by the insurance company and he sustained a loss of Rs.1,50,000/- and the complainant was thereby cheated in the hands of accused persons.

14.Law under Section 420 of I.P.C., is very clear and specific that to attract the offence of cheating u/Sec.420 I.P.C., the following ingredients which was explained under Sec.415 I.P.C., must be satisfied;

Sec.415 I.P.C. - Cheating - Whoever, by deceiving

any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces

the person so deceived to deliver any property, to

any person, or to consent that any person shall

retain any property, or intentionally induces the

person so deceived to do or omit to do anything

which he would not do or omit if he were not so

deceived, and which act or omission causes or is

likely to cause damage or harm to that person in

body, mind, reputation or property, is said to

“Cheat”.

Explanation:- A dishonest concealment of facts is

a deception within the meaning of this section.

15.A bare reading of the Sec.415 of IPC, it clearly understands that there must be a fraudulent or dishonest inducement, deception, intention to deceive and dishonest concealment of facts.

16.In order to prove the above ingredients against the accused A1 and A2, the prosecution relied on the evidence of PWs1 to 8. PW.1 is the complainant, in his evidence, he reiterated the contents of the report Ex.P1 more or less same with some improvements which will be discussed in the next coming paragraphs. PW.1 deposed in his chief examination “A1 is my childhood classmate. In 2013 I came to

Khammam to attend marriage of my another friend

Phani Kumar. By the time, I met A1, on enquiry A1 represented that he is insurance agent. He also stated that there is profit of 20 to 30% on insurance 6 policy and renewals. On that, I replied I have Honda

I-20 Car bearing No.AP28DR8997 and asked him to take insurance policy to the car for the year 2014. On 06.01.14 I called to the accused by phone and I was in

Khammam by the time he came to my house at

Srinivas nagar. He stated that I have to pay amount of Rs.23,500/- towards insurance and Rs.1,500/- for documentation. A1 provide his account number in

HDFC bank and asked to deposit the amount in his account when he called. On 13.01.2014 accused call me and asked me to deposit the amount in his account. In view of Sankranthi holidays on 13.01.2014 itself I deposited Rs.22,000/- in account of accused. A1 sent cover note of Royal Sundaram

Insurance Company through mail to me. When I came to Khammam on 14.01.2014 he gave hard copy to me”. (reproduced from the chief examination of

PW.1)

17.A bare reading of the above evidence given by PW.1 in his chief examination, it shows that the acquaintance between the parties is not a dispute. Both are childhood friends and the accused never induced the

PW.1 to take the vehicle insurance policy from him, it was the PW.1 after making relevant enquiries about the insurance policy details with the accused in a marriage function, he himself came to the decision to take the insurance policy from the accused and invited the accused to his house to take the vehicle insurance cover for his Hyundai I -20 car. PW.1 was never induced by the accused and as a proof of deposit of Rs.22,000/- in the accused bank account the prosecution filed counter-slip of deposit which bears the bank seal and after receiving the payment, the accused have sent the policy cover to the complainant / PW.1 and the prosecution filed a hard copy of policy as well as soft copy of policy which was marked as Ex.P3 and 7

P4. On perusal of above documents, it clearly shows that the transaction was successful and the vehicle of PW.1 was insured as per the policy cover

Ex.P3 from 13.01.2014 to 12.01.2015.

18.PW.1 complained that insurance policy cover Ex.P3 issued to him by the accused is a fake policy and by suppressing the fact he collected another Rs.35,000/- from him and removed one more policy with effect from 22.02.2014 to 21.02.2015 under Ex.D1 and made an accident claim by wrongly showing the accident date as 03.03.2014 instead of 22.02.2014 for which his claim was rejected and he incurred expenses of Rs.1,50,000/- in attending repairs to his car and on enquiry with the insurance company the reasons for rejection of the claim revealed as the cheque which was deposited by the accused is bounced and the policy was cancelled.

19.To prove the above facts, the prosecution first examined the

PW.4, who is the Manager of Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company

Limited, Khammam Branch. PW.4 deposed in his chief examination that “the policy under Ex.P3 is not in force and it is closed due to cheque bounce” . During the cross examination, it was elicited that the cheque which was deposited by the accused was not bounced but stalled due to the wrong mentioning of date on cheque. It was further admitted by the Pw.4 that the alleged policy under Ex.P3 with effect from 13.01.2014 to 12.01.2015 is genuine one and he also told that in general the policy cover comes into effect from the date of insurance of cover note i.e. according to the PW.4, the policy under Ex.P3 was with effect from 13.01.2014 and he further deposed that he does not know the details for the cancellation of policy under Ex.P3. The evidence of PW.4 as discussed above is sufficient and conviceble to believe in a fact that the policy under Ex.P3 is a genuine 8 one and not fake policy and the reasons for rejection of claim are best known to the Royal Sundaram Insurance Company Limited, Hyderabad

Branch and none of the concerned persons from the Insurance company,

Hyderabad branch, was examined and no such persons were cited as witnesses to this case by the investigation officer / PW.8.

20.Besides the PW.4 evidence, the prosecution produced another two circumstantial witnesses PW.2 and PW.3 before whom the accused alleged to be agreed for the payment of loss sustained by the complainant/

PW.1. PW.2 and PW.4 are the circumstantial witnesses and according to the prosecution case, they are the elders and mediators between PW.1 and the accused. They both categorically stated that the PW.1 approached them to settle the matter with the accused. They further stated that when they enquired with the accused at the house of PW.1 to pay the amount as claimed by PW.1, the accused agreed, but failed to pay, on that PW.1 went to police station and lodged a report Ex.P1.

21.The evidence of PW.2 and PW.3 is not trustworthy, because, they are not eye witnesses to the alleged transaction between the complainant and the accused. They learnt the facts from PW.1. Further, they are not the eye witnesses to the accident as well to believe in fact that that his car was damaged in road accident and they both did not verify the documents Ex.P3,

Ex.P4, Ex.D1 and D2 which was issued by PW.1 before settling the matter between the parties. The names of PW.2 and PW.3 was not taken by the

PW.1 in his report Ex.P1, but subsequently told in his Sec.161 Cr.P.C., statement which was recorded after 15 days from the date of his report as admitted by the PW.1 in his chief, which clearly shows it is an improvement.

9

Therefore, the evidence of PW.2 and PW.3 appears to be a created one and does not inspire confidence.

22.Coming back to the PW.1 evidence by connecting with the investigation done by the Investigating officer / PW.8, some other facts that came into light are, the PW.1 lodged a report Ex.P1 with almost all (07) months delay and no reasons for such delay was ascertained by the

Investigating Officer / Pw.8, the report Ex.P1 was made only against the accused A1 and the reasons for bringing the accused A2 in this crime is not explained by the Investigating officer in his charge sheet. It is also observed that every road accident has to be registered before making a claim in this case, but no such FIR is seen and there is no evidence regarding whether the Investigating officer / PW.8 received the report about the accident or not and also no evidence as to registration of crime and issuing of FIR for road accident. Cheque also found one of the reasons for rejection of claim by the insurance company. The reasons assigned by the

PW.1 for the rejection of his claim was cheque bounce. Admittedly,

PW.8 did not collect the cheque, rejection of claim of PW.1, and not examined the relevant documents pertaining to this case and not made any attempt to consult the Manager of Insurance company main branch at

Hyderabad to know the exact reasons for the cancellation of policy. It is also observed from the evidence of PW.1 that admittedly no intimation was given at the witness address about the cancellation of policy under Ex.P3 by the company.

23.Looking forward from another corner of the Law under Indian

Contract Act, the agent is the person authorized to act on behalf of another (called principal) to create legal relationship with a third party as an agent 10 representing on behalf of the Royal Sundaram Insurance Company Limited, once handover the policy cover to the PW.1, his role ends there itself and in case of any fraud by the company, the company is responsible and can be prosecuted, but not agent.

24.From the evidence of PW.4, Ex.P3 policy cover is proved to be genuine one, not a fake one as alleged by the PW.1 and the reasons why the company was rejected the claim of PW.1 shall come into light only when the authorized person from the Royal Sundaram Insurance Company Limited,

Hyderabad main branch, shall be examined before the Court, to that effect the prosecution failed. The investigation officer / PW.8 before registering the crime did not enquire into the reasons for delay of lodging of complaint after (07) months which is also a fatal to the prosecution case and the investigation agency failed to collect the appropriate incriminating evidence against the accused A1 and A2 in this crime. Further, as discussed above, no FIR has been lodged by the PW.1 immediately after the accident which tends this Court to draw an inference about the occurrence of accident as well.

25.For the reasons stated above and due to the latches in prosecution case, this Court concludes that prosecution absolutely failed to prove the dishonest intention, fraudulent intention, inducement, concealment of facts etec., on behalf of the accused which are essential ingredients to prove the guilty of the accused u/Sec.420 of IPC, beyond reasonable doubt.

11

26. IN THE RESULT:- A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence u/Sec.420 r/w 34 IPC, and accordingly they are acquitted

U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bonds and bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of six months from the date of this Judgment as contemplated U/Sec. 437 (A) Cr.P.C. There is no case property in this case.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr-III, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 15th day of July, 2019.

III Addl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class Khammam.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined For Prosecution : For Defence PW-1: M.Ajay Kumar -None- PW.2: E.Shiva Koteswar Reddy PW-3: M.Rama Krishna PW-4: T.Bapuji Raju PW-5: Ch.Mallesham. PW-6: M.Linga Swamy PW-7: P.Saravaiah PW-8: K.Kumaraswamy

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: Ex.P.1: Report of PW.1 Ex.P.2: Deposit slip dated 13.01.2014. Ex.P.3: Cover note. Ex.P.4: Mail Copy, dated 06.02.2014. Ex.P.5: Renewal papers dated 13.01.2014. Ex.P.6: Original cover note dated 27.02.2014. Ex.P.7: Renewal papers dated 22.02.2014. Ex.P.8: Sec.161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.3 Ex.P.9: Signature of PW.5 on C.D.F. Ex.P.10: Crime Detail Form Ex.P.11: F.I.R.

For Defence Ex.D1: Claim form. Ex.D2: Copy of mail. Ex.D3: Four photographs.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-Nil-

III Addl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class Khammam

TSKH030028092018

Presented on : 01-08-2018 Registered on : 28-07-2018 Decided on : 23-10-2018 Duration : 0 years, 2 months, 22 days

IN THE COURT OF

spl.JMFCProh and Excise,Khammam

AT KHAMMAM URBAN ,KHAMMAM

(Presided Over by Rubina Fatima)

CC/500320/2018

Exhibit No. (PROSECUTION): Parupalli Premchand Through Police Station Officer , S/o. Venkateshwarlu, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Flat No. 3rd Floor, CC Lake View Homes, Jammibanda Park, khammam dist.

KHAMMAM URBAN KHAMMAM

Parupalli Premchand VERSUS : Bopparaju Shankar Rao Age: 0 Occupation : S/o. Kondaiah, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No. 4-2-35/2, Sri nagar Colony, 5th lane, khammam dist.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------- APP for State }: SRINIVASA RAO MANDADAPU, Advocate for appearing for Bopparaju Shankar Rao Advocate appearing for , respectively. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offence punishable under : 138 of NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT,

ORDER

Both parties present, Complainant filed petition U/s. 257 Cr.p.c praying the court to permit the complaint to withdraw complaint against accused. Heard, the petition is allowed, the complaint is dismissed as withdrawn.

Date : 23-10-2018

(Rubina Fatima) spl.JMFCProh and Excise,Khammam

KHAMMAM URBAN KHAMMAM

TSKH030043122015

Presented on : 06-11-2015 Registered on : 31-07-2017 Decided on : 28-11-2018 Duration : 3 years, 0 months, 22 days

IN THE COURT OF

spl.JMFCProh and Excise,Khammam

AT KHAMMAM URBAN ,KHAMMAM

(Presided Over by Rubina Fatima)

CC/500382/2017

Exhibit No. (PROSECUTION): Kurakula Ravinandan Through Police Station Officer , Occ. Business, R/o H.no.10-11-223/1, Burhanpuram,Khammam

KHAMMAM URBAN KHAMMAM

Kurakula Ravinandan VERSUS : Muktala Venkateswarlu Age: 55 Occupation : Occ. Govt. Teacher head master, R/o H.no.11-10-756/1, Raparthi Nagar-II Beside Ration Shop No.38, Behind Sandhya Public School, Khammam ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- APP for State }: KANNEBOINA NAGESWAR RAO, Advocate for appearing for Muktala Venkateswarlu Advocate appearing for , respectively. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offence punishable under : 138 of NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT,

ORDER

Comp present, accused absent, Complainant filed petition U/s. 257 Cr.p.c Praying the court to permit the complainant to withdraw the complaint against accused. Heard, the petition is allowed, the complaint is dismissed as withdrawn.

Date : 28-11-2018

(Rubina Fatima) spl.JMFCProh and Excise,Khammam

KHAMMAM URBAN KHAMMAM

TSKH030030952018

Presented on : 13-08-2018 Registered on : 10-08-2018 Decided on : 14-11-2018 Duration : 0 years, 3 months, 1 days

IN THE COURT OF

spl.JMFCProh and Excise,Khammam

AT KHAMMAM URBAN ,KHAMMAM

(Presided Over by Rubina Fatima)

CC/500647/2018

Exhibit No. (PROSECUTION): Gavada Koteshwar rao Through Police Station Officer , S/o. Venkateswarlu, Occ Pensioner, R/o. 11-10-694/7/1/e, Burhanpuram, khammam dist.

KHAMMAM URBAN KHAMMAM

Gavada Koteshwar rao VERSUS : Kunapuraju Rajashekar Age: 45 Occupation : S/o. Hanumantha rao, Occ. Senior Asst, O/o. District Transport Office, Aasifabad, komaram Bheem Dist, Telangana state.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------- APP for State }: B.Kalyan rao, Advocate for appearing for Kunapuraju Rajashekar Advocate appearing for , respectively. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offence punishable under : 138 of NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT,

ORDER

both parties called present,complainant filed petition under section 257 cr.p.c.praying the honourble court to permit the complainant to withdraw, against accused. heard,this petition is allowed. the complaint is dismissed as withdrawn.

Date : 14-11-2018

(Rubina Fatima) spl.JMFCProh and Excise,Khammam

KHAMMAM URBAN KHAMMAM

TSKH030041652015

Presented on : 11-12-2015 Registered on : 11-12-2015 Decided on : 23-10-2018 Duration : 2 years, 10 months, 12 days

IN THE COURT OF

spl.JMFCProh and Excise,Khammam

AT KHAMMAM URBAN ,KHAMMAM

(Presided Over by Rubina Fatima)

CC/500213/2017

Exhibit No. (PROSECUTION): Bhykya Papu Through Police Station Officer , bhykya Papu s/o Ramulu Retired Employee H.No. 5-5-189/89 Sambhaninagar Khammam Town

KHAMMAM URBAN KHAMMAM

Bhykya Papu VERSUS : Seelam Yedukondalu Age: 48 Occupation : Seelam Yedukondalu s/o Satyanarayana Business H.No. 5-5-189/243/4/4/2 Allipuram Road Sambhani Nagar Khammam Town ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- APP for State }: S. Ramesh Kumar, Advocate for appearing for Seelam Yedukondalu Advocate appearing for , respectively. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Offence punishable under :

ORDER

Complainant present, accused absent, complainant filed petition U/s. 257 Cr.p.c praying the court to permit the complainant to withdraw complaint against accused. Heard the petition is allowed, the complaint is dismissed as withdrawn.

Date : 23-10-2018

(Rubina Fatima) spl.JMFCProh and Excise,Khammam

KHAMMAM URBAN KHAMMAM