1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS

COURT JUDGE::GUNTUR

CRL.M.P.NO. OF 2023
Against
Crime No. 370/2023 of Arundelpet Police Station, Guntur

BETWEEN

Vunnava Srinivasulu,
S/o. Subba Rao,
2nd Foreman of Margadarsi Chit Fund Private Limited,
Arundelpet Branch, Guntur,
aged about 56 years,
R/o. Flat No.302, brundavan plaza,
Brundavan Gardens, 4th Line,
Guntur City & District. ...Petitioner/Accused 2
AND

The State of Andhra Pradesh,

Rep. by CID, Guntur,
Guntur District. ...Respondent/Complainant

PETITIONER FILED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED 2

UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C.
Date of Complaint: 07-09-2023
Offences:(1) S.420, 468, 471 of IPC
(2) S.16 & 17 of A.P. Chit Fund Act

May it pleased your Honour.

1. It is submitted that the petitioner herein working as Accountant cum

2nd Foreman of Margadarsi Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd. The Crime
No.370/2023 of Arundalpet Police Station, Guntur, for the alleged
offences U/s. 420,468,471 IPC and U/s. 16 and 17 of the AP Chit
Funds Act registered against the Manager cum Foreman and staff of
the Margadarsi Chit Fund Pvt.Ltd, Arundelpet Branch. The name &
designation of the petitioner though not specifically mentioned in the
F.I.R, recently the police used to come to the office and make inquiry
about him and also informed that the petitioner presence is required
before the police and also proclaimed that he should surrender
before the police, otherwise they would take coercive steps against
the petitioner, thereby there is a reasonable apprehension at any
time the petitioner may apprehended by the police and might have
 2

adopted third degree measures because the case is foisted against

the Margadarsi on political revenge at the influence of ruling party.
[[

The said crime was registered on 07-09-2023 basing on the

written report said to have been submitted by the defacto
complainant.

2. It is submitted that according to the defacto complainant, on

verification of the records and auction proceedings of the Margadarsi
Chit Fund Private Limited (MCFPL), Arundelpet Branch, Guntur, the
defacto complainant found variations in signatures of the
subscriber/agents who signed on behalf of subscribers as authorized
agents in minutes of the proceedings at the chit auctions. It was
further alleged that the petitioner herein i.e. the Branch
Manager/foremen and the office staff forged the signatures of one Sri
Medarametla Seshagiri Rao on the auction minutes on behalf of the
subscribers and prepared the auction minutes to get wrongful gain
of interested subscribers of foreman and caused wrongful loss to
other subscribers by forging signatures. As such defacto
complainant came up with the report dated 07-09-2023 to the police
who immediately registered the same as the crime. The respondent
police knowing very well that the report submitted by the defacto
complainant alleges, at best, violations of the Chit Funds Act and did
not disclose any cognizable offence to be investigated by them, did
choose to register the same as the crime. The said report was
registered as a crime U/s. 420, 468, 471 IPC and U/s. 16 and 17 of
the AP Chit Funds Act against the petitioner herein.

3. It is submitted that the petitioner herein is innocent and he has not

committed any offence much less as alleged in the written report.
The allegations in the report are vague, unfounded and baseless. The
allegation made in the report do not constitute any offence either
U/s. 420 IPC or U/s. 468 IPC or U/s. 471 IPC or U/s.16 APCFA or
U/s.17 APCFA.

4. It is submitted that for constituting offence U/s. 420 IPC, there shall
be a dishonest intent, deception, delivery of property and financial
loss. Inducement to deliver property. In the present case, there may
not be any such allegation as there is no inducement for delivery of
 3

property or financial loss to any subscriber and the petitioner

followed the rules prescribed by the act while conducting the
auction. The payment of prize amount was made to the prized
subscriber accordingly. The allegations made in the report does not
disclose anywhere about which subscriber was provided benefit at
the cost of the which subscriber. The allegations made does not
withstand the ingredients to constitute offence U/s.420 IPC.

5. It is submitted that, for constituting offence U/s. 468 IPC, there shall
be forgery and fraudulent intent. The allegation made is regarding
the signatures of the said Seshagiri Rao in the minutes of auction
proceedings that took place in the months of June to October of
2020. The said Seshagiri Rao has not disputed till now that his
signatures were forged in the minutes of auction proceedings. It is
alleged in the written report that upon the verification of auction
proceedings by the defacto complainant, the defacto complainant
found that those signatures varied and took the statement of the said
Seshagiri Rao. In any event, the said Seshagiri Rao shall be
competent to lodge FIR alleging forgery if any. As can be seen from
the report, the defacto complainant is not competent to register the
crime alleging forgery of the said Seshagiri Rao.

6. It is submitted that as per the section 468 IPC, the forgery must be
done with fraudulent intent to cheat or defraud someone. In the
present case, the timeframe of the alleged auction proceeding with
no issue or dispute raised by the said Seshagiri Rao about his
signatures being forged and moreover there is no specific detail
about who was defrauded. Not only that but also the said Seshagiri
Rao himself or the defacto complainant has not stated anywhere that
the said Seshagiri Rao was defrauded by the petitioner. Therefore,
the allegations made against the petitioner does not attract the
offence U/s. 468 IPC and such that the section 471 IPC also shall
not be attracted.

7. It is submitted that the Chit Funds Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to

as the Act) is a self-contained code in itself. Sections 16 and 17 of
the Act were also added while registering the crime. The allegation of
the defacto complainant is that the MCFPCL prepared false
documents/minutes with forged signatures and created a facility to
 4

pay the prize amount to selected persons and the said act is in
violation of sections 16 and 17 of the Act. Section 16 of the act states
the procedure as to when, where and how the chits shall be
conducted and section 17 states the procedure that is to be followed
while conducting the chit i.e., the preparation of minutes. There are
no ingredients in the report constituting violation of the sections
referred from the act. Moreover, the disputes under the act shall not
amount to cognizable offences for registering the crime. As such the
respondent police have no jurisdiction to register the crime and to
proceed with the investigation.

8. It is submitted that the respondent police have not conducted

preliminary inquiry before registering this crime. The Supreme Court
in case of Lalita Kumari vs State of UP held that in all commercial
offences, the police shall conduct preliminary inquiry before
registering crime. This theory of preliminary inquiry is introduced to
avoid false implications. Yet, the respondent police failed to conduct
the mandatory preliminary enquiry and registered the crime directly.

9. It is submitted that all the offences mentioned in the FIR are

punishable with imprisonment of a maximum period of seven years.
As per the law laid down in Arnesh Kumar case, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court directed the investigating officers to follow the procedure
contemplated under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. to all the cases where
the offences punishable are less than seven years. Whereas in the
present case, the respondent police did not issue any notice under
Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. It is further came to know that the
investigation agency added the section of law in order to cover their
acts which is against law.

10. It is submitted that, there is a prima facie case and balance of

convenience warranting this Hon'ble Court to grant interim stay of
investigation. The defacto complainant without availing remedy
available under the Chit Funds Act for the redressal of grievances
approached the Inspector of Police who in collusion with the defacto
complainant set the criminal law into motion. They converted the
civil dispute into the police case. It is an abuse of process of criminal
investigation.
 5

11. It is submit that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence and
they have been false implicated without there being any material or
evidence to prosecute.

12. It is submitted that the complaint filed with malafide intention

launched to wreak vengeance and the motive of the complainant in
order to political motive and revenge as stated above this present
case has foisted against the petitioner.

13. It is humbly submitted that the legislative intent behind in enacting

the criminal laws is to maintain law and order, peace and tranquility
in the society. Therefore the prosecutions shall be in the direction of
achieving the said goal and in the direction of inspiring confidence
and faith of the people in the system and the process of law should
never be permitted for wreaking vengeance against the persons for
individual benefits in the said disguise.

14. It is submitted that the petitioner was made as an accused at the

instance of their political rivals with a view to malign them. It is
submitted that the petitioner is willing to furnish suitably security
and abide by any condition which this Hon’ble Court may impose.

15. The petitioner is law abiding citizens and having good reputation in
the eye of society and law abiding citizens. The petitioner is ready to
furnish the sureties and co-operate with the investigation agency
and they would comply any conditions if at all imposed in the event
of enlarge them on bail.

16. It is submitted that, there is a prima facie case and balance of

convenience warranting this Hon'ble Court to grant interim stay of
investigation. The defacto complainant without availing remedy
available under the Chit Funds Act for the redressal of grievances,
approached the Inspector of Police who in collusion with the defacto
complainant set the criminal law into motion. They converted the
civil dispute into the police case. It is an abuse of process of criminal
investigation.

17. It is submitted that pending the main petition in the guise of

registration of the crime against the Manager of Margadarsi Chit
 6

Funds Pvt. Ltd cum Foreman and staff of the said company and
being a 2nd Foreman of the said Margadarsi Chit Fund, Arundelpet
Branch. The police will apprehend the petitioner at any point of time.
If the police apprehended the petitioner he would be suffered in all
manner and it is further even the police apprehended in the above
said crime there is a likely endanger of the life of the petitioner in
their hands by reason that at the influence Ruling Party particularly
the de-facto complainant herein and further believing the petitioner
that Police might have adopt third degree methods in the custody or
outside of the custody. It is submitted that if the police apprehended
the petitioner the business of Margadarsi company of Arundelpet
Branch is spoiled and also effected the reputation of the petitioner
as well as the company which leads to effect the customers of life of
Margadarsi.

18. It is submitted that the Accused No. 1 filed Anticipatory Bail in

Crl.M.P.No. 1115 of 2023 on the file of Hon’ble III Additional District
& Sessions Judge Court, Guntur. The Hon’ble learned Sessions
Judge was pleased to pass anticipatory in favour of A1 by its Order,
dt: 09-10-2023. It is pertainant to mention here that in the above
said Crl.M.P.No. 1115 of 2023 the said person namely Medarametla
Seshagiri Rao, S/o. Venkata Kotaiah filed a Notarised Affidavit before
the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur. Wherein it
was stated that, One M.V. Subba Rao, Asst. Registrar of Chits, O/o.
District Registrar Office, Guntur approached him about one week
back prior to 07-09-2023 and took him to C.I.D Office situated at
backside of Guntur Medical College, Guntur and showed xerox
copies of minutes book maintained by Margadarsi Chit Fund Pvt Ltd,
Arundelpet Branch, Guntur in the presence of C.I.D Officials, R.O.
Guntur and forced me to identify his signatures on xerox copies of
minutes book. In regarding that he gave statement stating that the
signatures found on minutes books belongs to him. The said fact was
recorded his statement by the complainant. Subsequently the police
threatened him with dire consequences and obtained his signature
on blank papers. He came to know that the said M.V.Subba Rao,
Asst. Registrar of Chits, Guntur colluded with the police might have
used my blank papers and registered the same in Crime No. 370 of
2023, by Arundelpet Police Station, Guntur. Afterwards he went to
 7

Margadarsi Chit Fund Pvt Ltd, Arundeltpet Branch, Guntur and

verified original minutes book maintained by Branch Manager,
Arundelpet Branch, Guntur and found that the signatures belongs
to him. And they are not forged signatures. It is submitted that in
order to cover and shield about the illegal action of the police as well
as C.I.D and Assistant Registrar at present they are trying to
apprehend the petitioner and with an intention to weaving false story
in the above said crime which is not valid in the eye of law and it
leads to harass the petitioner and staff of the Margadarsi Chit Fund
Pvt. Ltd.

19. It is submitted that Crl.M.P.No. 397/2024 was filed on the file of

Hon’ble III Additional District Judge Court, Guntur. The Public
Prosecutor informed the Hon’ble Court about the transfer of the
investigation to the CID in connection with Crime No. 370/2023 of
Arundelpet Police Station, Guntur. Consequently, the said petition
was withdrawn from the Hon’ble III Additional District Judge Court,
Guntur, seeking liberty to file a fresh petition before the appropriate
bench. Thereby the present petition is filed.
[[

20. It is submitted that, no case is filed or pending before any court for
the relief claimed hereunder.

21. No meaningful purpose will be served by keeping the Petitioner/

Accused in judicial custody.

22. It is further submitted that the Petitioner/ Accused is ready to

cooperate with the investigation agency for smooth investigation and
to produce sufficient security to the entire satisfaction of this Hon’ble
Court for his due appearance.
 8

It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may Graciously

be pleased to direct the respondent Crime Investigation Department
(CID), to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in
connection with the crime No.370 of 2023 of Arundelpet P.S, Guntur
and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem
fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER

 9

IN THE COURT OF THE

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
COURT JUDGE::GUNTUR

CRL.M.P.NO. OF 2023
Against
Crime No. 370/2023 of Arundelpet
Police Station, Guntur

BETWEEN:

G. Sivarama Krishna,
...Petitioner/Accused-A1

AND

Crime Investigation Department,

Rep. by the Public Prosecutor.

…..Respondent/Complainant

MEMORANDUM OF CRIMINAL
PETITION (FILED UNDER SECTION
438 OF CR.P.C)

Filed on:

Filed by
V.V. LAKSHMI NARAYANA (6619)
NUTHALAPATI MOHAN (24799)
Advocates
D.No.4-20-12/2, Siddartha Nagar,
2nd Line, near K.L.P. School,
Guntur-522006.

COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER/ACCUSED-A2