THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3885 OF 2020
ORDER:
1. This petition is filed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners in CC No.959 of 2019 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Gajwel, Medak District.
2. The petitioners are questioning the correctness of the charge sheet filed against them for the offences under Sections 420, 406 and 506 of IPC.
3. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant/2nd respondent namely Dasari Abraham Sam Sunder is that the petitioners are family friends. The 1st petitioner asked the 2nd respondent to join in his dairy farm business and in order to increase the business, 20 buffaloes from Haryana State were purchased at the cost of Rs.11.00 lakhs and handed over to the petitioners with a condition to share 50% of the profit. The petitioners also gave their 1000 sq.yds of land on lease to the 2nd respondent, who built a shed in the said leased out land. The petitioners were running the business. However, they never parted with the profit from the milk and thereby cheated the 2nd respondent. Since the petitioners were not giving 2nd respondent's 2 share of the money from the milk sold from the buffaloes given by the 2nd respondent, when the 2nd respondent tried to take back his buffaloes, the petitioners threatened him with dire consequences, for which reason, criminal complaint was filed in the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Gajwel. The said complaint was referred to the police, Manoharabad Police Station for the purpose of investigation.
4. The police, Manoharabad Police Station registered the complaint for the offences under Sections 420, 406 and 506 of IPC against the petitioners. The Investigating Officer seized 14 buffaloes under the cover of panchanama from these petitioners and handed over to the 2nd respondent under acknowledgment. Further, during the course of investigation, it was revealed that the 2nd respondent purchased buffaloes from Haryana State at the cost of Rs.11.00 lakhs and also leased out the land to the petitioners for a period of eight years. Though the petitioners agreed to pay money at Rs.80/- per liter, they failed to do so, even though, each buffalo gives 12 liters of milk per day.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that firstly the private complaint being referred by the police is in violation of the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 3 Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P1. On facts, even admitting that there was business transaction between the petitioners and the 2nd respondent, such breach of contract if any would not amount to criminal offence and predominantly the case is of civil nature. It is for the 2nd respondent to approach the Civil Court and file for damages. He relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ALPIC Finance Ltd., v. P.Sadasivan in Appeal (Crl.) No.194 of 2001, dated 16.02.2001, wherein it is held that breach of trust may be both civil and criminal offence, it has to be ascertained whether it would be predominantly civil wrong or would amount to criminal offence. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when there was no allegation in the complaint that there was fraud or dishonest inducement at the inception, it would not amount to deception and consequently, not liable to be charged for the offence of cheating punishable under Section 420 of IPC.
6. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submits that these are questions of facts which have to be ascertained only during the course of trial and at the very inception, this Court cannot interfere and quash the proceedings. Both the accused 1 (2015) 6 SCC 287 4 and defacto complainant will have ample opportunity to adduce evidence in the trial Court and prayed to dismiss the petition.
7. The fact that the 2nd respondent purchased certain buffaloes and also took lease of the premises of land from the 1st petitioner and consequently, petitioners running dairy business are not in dispute. According to the 2nd respondent, he had purchased the buffaloes and handed over to the petitioners and wanted share in the profits. There is no allegation that the milk was sold to customers and consequently failed to give the profits to the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent only on the basis of assumption states that the petitioners have made money by selling milk. However, in the process of running a dairy farm, there are several expenses that would be incurred and it cannot be ascertained as to the quantity of the milk that yielded every day and what was the profit margin of the petitioners/accused. In the said circumstances, on the basis of assumption that the petitioners must have made profits and did not part with the 50% of the profits, cannot be made basis to arrive at the conclusion of guilt against the petitioners.
8. For the offence of cheating, there should have been misrepresentation, pursuant to which, a person must have been 5 induced and consequently, deliver some property believing such misrepresentation. Even according to the 2nd respondent he had invested in the business of dairy and wanted returns from the petitioners. It cannot be quantified as to the milk that was yielded from the buffaloes. When the case of the 2nd respondent is that he had purchased buffaloes and handed over to the petitioners in the course of business, no offence of cheating is made out. It is stated during the course of investigation that the Inspector has seized the live cattle from the petitioners and handed over to the 2nd respondent. To attract an offence of criminal misappropriation, it has to be shown that the property, which has to be entrusted, is subject to criminal misappropriation. In this case, it is live cattle and dairy farm was being run. On the basis of the complaint given by the 2nd respondent, the police have seized live cattle and handed over to the 2nd respondent. For the said reasons of none of the ingredients under Section 406 of IPC are made out.
9. Except stating that the petitioners threatened when asked for the cattle and to return the amount, there are no specific instances or dates given on which date the altercation ensued and what exactly transpired on the said dates. In the absence of any specific allegations, vague assertions that the petitioners threatened the 6 defacto complainant would not be sufficient to prove a charge under Section 506 of IPC for criminal intimidation.
10. In the present facts and circumstances, the trial is unwarranted and would only consume the court's time. It is apparent from the facts of the case that the allegations made are on the basis of assumptions and none of the ingredients of the provisions under Sections 420, 406 and 506 of IPC are made out.
11. For the aforementioned reasons, this Court deems it appropriate to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.
12. In the result, the proceedings against the petitioners in CC No.959 of 2019 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Gajwel, Medak District are hereby quashed.
13. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed.
_________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 20.10.2022 kvs 7 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL PETITION No.3885 of 2020 Dt.20.10.2022 kvs