Telangana High Court
Veerapuneni Madhusudhan Rao vs The State Of Telangana on 9 July, 2024
Author: Juvvadi Sridevi
Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.538 of 2019
ORDER:
Petitioner/A-2 in C.C.No.781 of 2017 on the file of X Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally at Miyapur (subsequently renumbered as C.C.No.5896 of 2022 on the file of XII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Kukatpally), has filed this criminal petition seeking to quash the proceedings against him in the said case, registered for the offences under Sections 420 and 506 of IPC.
2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri Srinivasa Rao Pachwa, appearing for Respondent No.2 and perused the record.
3. The contents of the complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent are that the petitioner herein was his Ex.-Office colleague and when he was in search of a house for purchase, the petitioner has introduced him to a builder by name B.Venkateswara Rao (A-1), who was constructing an apartment/building. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent had booked a flat and paid to A-1, a substantial amount of Rs.17 Lakhs out of Rs.18 Lakhs and the balance amount of Rs.1 Lakh was to be paid at the time of handing 2 JS, J Crl.P.No.538 of 2019 over of the flat. It is alleged in the complaint that in spite of receiving huge amount from him, the builder (A-1) had sold the said flat to someone else, and thus, cheated him in connivance with the petitioner herein. Basing on the said complaint, the aforesaid case has been registered.
4. Case of the petitioner is that the entire transaction of purchasing the house was between the 2nd respondent and A-1 and that as the 2nd respondent was his Ex.-Colleague, he had merely introduced him to A-1, and except that, he has nothing to do with the transaction between the 2nd respondent and A-1. Accordingly, he prayed to quash the proceedings against him.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, contended that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are to be tried and since the matter is at the stage of trial, proceedings cannot be quashed at this stage.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent has also contended that since the matter is at the stage of trial and as the petitioner herein, in collusion with A-1, has cheated the 2nd respondent, proceedings against the petitioner cannot be quashed and the criminal petition is liable to be dismissed.
3 JS, J Crl.P.No.538 of 2019
7. It is the admitted case of the de facto complainant/2nd respondent himself that the petitioner has merely introduced him to A-1, who was constructing an apartment building. The contents of the complaint also disclose that the amount was paid by the 2nd respondent to A-1 only and the petitioner herein has not received any amount from the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent has also failed to establish any partnership between the petitioner and A-1 so as to make him liable for the charges levelled.
8. Learned counsel for petitioner has relied on a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vesa Holdings Private Ltd., and another v. State of Kerala and others 1, wherein, it is held that the offence of cheating is not made out when there was no deception played from the very beginning and if the intention to cheat is developed later on, the same cannot amount to cheating. It is further held that the complainant has to show the fraudulent or dishonest intention of the accused at the time of making promise or representation and in the absence of culpable intention, the failure on the part of accused to keep his promise, does not make out offence of cheating. The said judgment is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case, as there was no fraudulent or dishonest intention on the part of petitioner herein at the time of introducing the 2nd respondent to A-1. 1 2015 LawSuit (SC) 279 4 JS, J Crl.P.No.538 of 2019
9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent has relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manik B. v. Kadapala Sreyes Reddy and another 2, wherein, it is held that at the stage of deciding an application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., it is not permissible for the High Court to go into the correctness or otherwise of the material placed by the prosecution in the charge sheet and the Court would exercise its power to quash the proceedings only if it finds that taking the case as its face value, no case is made out at all. There is no dispute with regard to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this judgment. In the present case also, taking the charges at face value, no case is made out against the petitioner. The mere introduction of a person does not make the person so introducing liable for the transactions that took place without his knowledge.
10. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent has also relied on another judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Yogesh Kumar Holkar v. State of Madhya Pradesh and another3, wherein, it is held that once a charge sheet is filed against the accused, all material allegations should be considered by the trial Court on the basis of the material collected during the investigation and adduced in evidence. The principle laid down by the 2 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 642 3 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1223 5 JS, J Crl.P.No.538 of 2019 Hon'ble Supreme Court in this judgment is applicable when there is some material against the accused that was collected during the course of investigation. However, when there is not an iota of evidence against the accused, he should not be subjected to the cumbersome exercise of facing trial merely on the ground that a formal charge sheet has been filed in the matter.
11. As stated above, the only reason for registration of case against the petitioner is that he introduced the 2nd respondent to A-1. The 2nd respondent, being a Chartered Accountant, is expected to be wise enough while making payments to A-1 and he cannot simply make allegations against the petitioner, who has merely introduced him to A-1. It is also to be seen that the 2nd respondent did not obtain any acknowledgement from A-1 in proof of paying considerable amount of Rs.17 Lakhs. He stated that the amount has been paid only on oral agreement for purchasing the flat, which is not expected of an accountant professional. The complainant has further failed to show any evidence that A-1 and A-2 are partners in constructions and they both together entered into transaction with him.
12. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the charges levelled against the petitioner and accordingly, this criminal petition is 6 JS, J Crl.P.No.538 of 2019 allowed, and the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.781 of 2017 on the file of X Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally at Miyapur (subsequently renumbered as C.C.No.5896 of 2022 on the file of XII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Kukatpally), are hereby quashed.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________ JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J Date:09.07.2024 Ksk