The former judge had a change of mind after the suspects' family members met him, and decided against pursuing the case.
A former High Court judge who had complained of cheating against two men has approached the Film Nagar Police in Hyderabad, requesting them to quash the first information report (FIR).
The judge, who had served in the high courts of Andhra Pradesh and Allahabad, said in his 27 February complaint that two men, Narendran and his alleged aide Sarath Reddy, had conned his wife and daughters of ₹2.5 crore, promising BJP’s electoral bonds.
The accused had also promised jobs to the complainant’s US-based grandsons.
“Knowing my background, they took some amounts for the party (BJP) at the Centre. They said the money would be used to purchase electoral bonds for the BJP,” he said, adding that one of the suspects had identified himself as an RSS member.
Within days of complaining, the former judge had a change of mind after the suspects’ family members met him, and decided against pursuing the case. In a letter to the Film Nagar Station House Officer (SHO) M Srinivasulu, the former judge requested the police that the complaint be considered withdrawn.
“He said the suspect’s family members and wives visited him and cried a lot in front of him. As a result, he had a change of heart as he respected their feelings,” the investigating officer told South First.
A day after registering the complaint, the retired judge told South First that both men had assured to return the money and requested him to withdraw the case. “I had filed the FIR only to intimidate them,” he added.
In the fresh letter, the complainant said he had no reason to disbelieve both the accused and would like to withdraw FIR No 164/24.
However, a complainant should file a writ petition in the high court. stating the grounds for withdrawing the case. Supporting evidence, too, should be submitted.
DCP West Zone Vijay Kumar told South First that once an FIR was registered in a cognizable offense, the police would investigate as per the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
“But if the complainant is not interested in pursuing the case, we will verify the grounds on which he wants to quash the FIR. Usually, if it is a heinous crime against humanity or an individual, the case would not be dropped. But in this case, we will decide after considering all pros and cons before informing the court,” he said.
According to Section 257 of the CrPC, “If a complainant, at any time before a final order is passed in any case under this Chapter, satisfies the Magistrate that there are sufficient grounds for permitting him to withdraw his complaint against the accused, or if there be more than one accused, against all or any of them, the Magistrate may permit him to withdraw the same, and shall thereupon acquit the accused against whom the complaint is so withdrawn.”
On 27 February, the Film Nagar Police registered the case under sections 406 (criminal breach of trust), and 420 (cheating) of the Indian Penal Code against Narendran and Sarath Reddy.
In his complaint, the former judge stated that Narendran deputed Reddy to collect the amount. The latter reportedly identified himself as an employee of a construction company, Atmiya Homes.
“He further stated that out of regard for me and my position as a former judge of the High Court of Hyderabad (in erstwhile Andhra Pradesh) and Allahabad, he would get jobs for my grandchildren in the US,” he claimed in the FIR.
The complainant added that his daughters and wife trusted them and transferred ₹2.5 crore in multiple installments in 2021. “It can be verified from the WhatsApp messages,” he added.
However, the men did not issue any bonds nor grant any favours to his grandchildren. The former judge said he had been trying to retrieve the money for two years but in vain.
He pointed out that, per the Supreme Court judgment, the collection of electoral bonds was unconstitutional.
“I spoke to them. It seemed that they didn’t have much idea where the money was,” the former judge said earlier.
“Two of my grandsons are unemployed in the US. They claimed to have contacts there. I kept asking them about the bonds, but it was of no use. After seeing the Supreme Court judgment on electoral bonds, I became alert and registered a complaint,” he added.
The Supreme Court on 15 February, held that the anonymous electoral bonds were violative of the right to information and Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and struck down the electoral bonds scheme.
Meanwhile, Reddy claimed innocence. “I have been falsely accused in this matter. I have not taken any money nor cheated anyone. The matter is between the complainant and Narendran,” he told South First earlier.
Narendran did not respond to multiple calls and messages.
May 03, 2024
May 02, 2024
May 02, 2024
Apr 29, 2024
Apr 25, 2024
Apr 25, 2024
