Bandi Venu vs State Of Telangana

Telangana High Court

Bandi Venu vs State Of Telangana on 3 May, 2024

       THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA

           CRIMINAL PETITION No.10499 of 2023

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.1, to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.583 of 2022 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate at Bhadrachalam, for the offences punishable under Section 420 of IPC.

2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2 got acquaintance with accused No.1 while she was working as sales women in Baldurga Cloth Shop at UB Road, Badrachalam. It is stated that accused No.1 collected amounts on several occasions from respondent No.2 and one Radhika under the guise of providing employment in Singareni. Later, respondent No.2 realized that she got cheated by believing the fraudulent words of accused No.1. Hence, a case was registered in Crime No. 50 of 2022 before the Bhadrachalam Town Police and after completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed vide C.C.No.583of 2022 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate at Bhadrachalam. 2

SKS,J Crl.P.No.10499 of 2023

3. Heard Smt Sujatha Kurapati, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri S. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted there is no evidence to prove that respondent No.2 transferred amounts to the petitioner. He further submitted that mere giving assurance of providing job, does not amount to cheating. Hence, he prayed the Court to allow the Criminal Petition by quashing the proceedings against the petitioner.

5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State opposed the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that the petitioner cheated respondent No.2 by collecting amounts under the guise of providing employment in Singareni. As such, the alleged offence against the petitioner requires trial. Hence, he prayed the Court to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

6. Having regard to the rival submissions made by both the learned counsel and having gone through the material available on record, to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, the Court has to see whether the averments in the complaint 3 SKS,J Crl.P.No.10499 of 2023 prima facie shows that it constitute the offence as alleged by the Police.

7. 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."

8. In view of the above discussion as well as the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SurendraKori (Supra), this Court does not find any merit in the criminal petition to quash the proceedings against the petitioner and the same is liable to be dismissed.

9. As seen from the record, it is stated that the petitioner collected the amounts from respondent No.2 under the guise of providing employment and cheated the petitioner. It is pertinent 1 (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155 4 SKS,J Crl.P.No.10499 of 2023 to note that evidence can be adduced at the time of trial proceedings. Since the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature, this Court is of the considered opinion that that the allegations levelled against the petitioner requires trial in order to elicit true facts of the case.

10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.

_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 03.05.2024 gms