Telangana High Court
Syed Mohidoddin vs The State Of Telangana on 6 June, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.390 of 2024
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') by the petitioner/accused No.1seeking to quash the proceedings against him in Cr.No.1451 of 2023 dated 26.12.2023 before theGachibowli Police Station, Cyberabad District, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 406, 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC').
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.2/de facto complainant lodged a complaint stating that he along with seventeen others are in the field of sheep trading and their work is sheep breeding. It is alleged that under the scheme of the Department of the Animal Welfare in the Telangana State, they handed over 133 units of sheeps to one Moinuddin (accused No.1) and his son who allegedly came to their village to purchase the sheep units and that they also took the aadhar details and bank account credentials of respondent No.2 and seventeen others assuring that the amounts of 133 units of sheeps would be credited to their bank accounts. However, even after considerable time when the respondent No.2 and others did not receive any 2 SKS,J Crl.P.No.390of 2024 amounts, they approached the Department and came to know that the said amounts were already credited to different bank accounts and upon receiving such information, the respondent No.2 along with seventeen others came to know that their amounts were credited to bank accounts that do not belong to them.
3. On receipt of said complaint, the Police commenced investigation and arrayed the petitioner as accused No.1. Aggrieved thereby, this Criminal Petition is filed.
4. Heard Sri M.Venkata Swamy, learned counsel for petitioner/accused No.1, Sri S.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent No.1 - State, and Sri V.Ravi Kiran Rao, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Sri V.Rohith, learned counsel for respondent No.3. None appeared for respondent No.2.
5. Learned counsel for petitioner/accused No.1, submitted that there is no incriminating evidence or material evidence against the petitioner, such as, receipt of selling of sheep units which proves his involvement in the case. He contended that the entire process of payment would be performed by the Government Officials and the amounts for purchase of sheeps would be 3 SKS,J Crl.P.No.390of 2024 directly deposited in the bank accounts of the sheep sellers, therefore, there is no role of petitioner in the said process and he is a mere contractor.He asserted that due to previous conflicts, the ADs of the Department bore grudge against the petitioner as a result of which he is falsely implicated in this case. Therefore, prayed this Court to allow the Criminal Petition by quashing the proceedings against the petitioner.
6. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for petitioner/accused No.1 and submitted that the matter needs full-fledged investigation as there are serious allegations against the petitioner/accused No.1 for cheating respondent No.2 and seventeen others. As such, prayed this Court to dismiss the Criminal Petition.
7. Learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.3 submitted that the petitioner/accused No.1 was paid for purchasing sheeps and he has received the amount from the Government for purchase of 133 units of sheepsbut he has not distributed the same to the respondent No.2 and others. He asserted that only after thorough investigation the role of petitioner/accused No.1 would come out, as such, quashing proceedings against him at this stage would amount to abuse of 4 SKS,J Crl.P.No.390of 2024 process of law. Therefore, prayed this Court to dismiss the Criminal Petition.
8. Having regard to the rival submissions made and on perusing the material placed on record, it is noted that the primary contention of learned counsel for petitioner/accused No.1 is that the role of petitioner/accused No.1 is limited to the extent of purchasing sheep units and he is only involved in the said business and is no way concerned with the credit of amounts in the bank accounts of sellers, whereas, in the counter affidavit submitted by learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.3,it is mentioned that the petitioner/accused No.1 is the Managing Director of Lolona Livestock Company who sent his brother's son Syed Ikramuddin (accused No.2) to the place of respondent No.2 and the accused No.2 in turn, along with accused Nos.3 to 6 purchased sheeps from respondent No.2 and other sellers and assured them that the amounts would be credited to their bank accounts but thereafter, the accused persons managed to change the aadhar cards and bank credentials of sellers with the help of company employees and received the said amounts. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent No.2 approached the Police and lodged a complaint. It is significant to take into account that to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, the Court has to see whether the 5 SKS,J Crl.P.No.390of 2024 averments in the complaint prima facie shows that they constitute the offences as alleged by the Police against the petitioner.
9. At this stage, it is pertinent to note the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Surendra Kori 1, wherein in paragraph No.14 it is held as follows:
"The High Court in exercise of its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. does not function as a Court of appeal or revision. This Court has, in several judgments, held that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., though wide, has to be used sparingly, carefully and with caution. The High Court, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of wide magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material."
10. In view of the above, it cannot be concluded that the petitioner/accused No.1 had no role to play in the alleged fraud. As such, this Court is of the opinion that the matter requires thorough investigation and having regard to the law laid down by 1 (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155 6 SKS,J Crl.P.No.390of 2024 the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Surendra Kori(supra), there are no grounds in this criminal petition to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner/accused No.1 and the same is liable to be dismissed.
11. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, it is left open to the petitioner/accused No.1 to submit his defense and other relevant documents before the Investigating Officer and the Investigating Officer, in turn, shall take into account the sameat the time of filing the charge sheet.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date:06.06.2024 PT