P Sri Ram Simha Teja vs The State Of Telangana
2021 Latest Caselaw 708 Tel

            HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

              CRIMINAL PETITION No.5832 OF 2020

ORDER:

The present Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings

in Crime No.154 of 2020 pending on the file of Central Crime Station,

Hyderabad Commissionerate. The petitioner herein is sole accused in

the said crime. The offences alleged against him are under Sections -

406, 420 and 506 of IPC.

2. Heard Mrs. D. Padmavathi, learned counsel for the

petitioner, and Mr. M. Naga Raghu, learned counsel for respondent

No.2 - de facto complainant and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor

appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 - State.

3. Respondent No.2 has made the following allegations against

the petitioner herein:

(i) Respondent No.2 used to visit Manea Saloon, situated at

Banjara Hills. The petitioner herein met her there itself.

He is the owner of Tour Secure Solutions Private

Limited. With the said acquaintance, they became close

to each other;

(ii) Out of the said acquaintance, the petitioner herein

requested respondent No.1 to give an amount of Rs.23.00

lakhs for developing his Company, and on the assurance KL,J Crl.P. No.5832 of 2020

of petitioner that he will induct respondent No.2 as a

Director in his company, and believing him bona fidely,

she has paid the said amount to the petitioner on

27.06.2019 vide cheque No.007781 drawn on ICICI

Bank, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad;

(iii) The petitioner has paid an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards

salary to respondent No.2 from his personal account for

the period from July, 2019 to July, 2020;

(iv) The petitioner herein has lured respondent No.2 by

showing some photographs and by stating that he has

acquaintance with important leaders of BJP including

Mr. C. Venkataraman and that there is one post in BPCL

and he will see that the said post would be given to

respondent No.2. Thus, the petitioner requested her to

transfer an amount of Rs.1.00 Crore to the credit of his

company within ten(10) days, so that he will see that she

gets that post;

(v) Believing the version of petitioner, she has credited the

said amount of Rs.1.00 Crore through RTGS on

31.08.2019 from her account. Thereafter, neither he

arranged the said post in BPCL, nor repaid the amount to

her. When she requested the petitioner to repay the said

amount, he threatened her; and KL,J Crl.P. No.5832 of 2020

(vi) Thus, according to respondent No.2, the petitioner herein

induced her and cheated her.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that

there is abnormal delay of one year in lodging the complaint. There is

loan agreement dated 27.06.2019 between the petitioner and

respondent No.2, but respondent No.2 has intentionally suppressed the

said fact in the present complaint dated 21.10.2020. He would further

submit that respondent No.2 has lodged a complaint with Banjara

Hills Police Station on 16.09.2020, and the petitioner herein has filed

an application seeking anticipatory bail in an unregistered crime. In

the said anticipatory bail application viz., Crl.M.P. No.1843 of 2020,

the police have filed counter wherein they have specifically

mentioned about the contents of the complaint dated 16.09.2020 made

by respondent No.2. The contents of the complaint dated 16.09.2020

and the contents of the present complaint are contradictory to each

other. The disputes between the petitioner and respondent No.2 are

civil in nature and they are with regard to the said loan agreement.

Respondent No.2 has implicated the petitioner in the present case and

she is trying to criminalize the civil proceedings.

5. On the other hand, Mr. M. Naga Raghu, learned counsel for

respondent No.2 would submit that the contents of the complaint

would constitute the offences alleged against the petitioner herein.

There is a promise by the petitioner that he would see a post arranged

in BPCL to respondent No.2 by using his contacts with leaders in KL,J Crl.P. No.5832 of 2020

power. Under the loan agreement dated 27.06.2019, the amount paid

was only Rs.23.00 lakhs and the same is nothing to do with the

present complaint and the amount of Rs.1.00 Crore paid by

respondent No.2 to the petitioner. Respondent No.2 has lodged the

complaint on 16.09.2020 with Banjara Hills Police Station and since

the amount of Rs.1.00 Crore is involved, the police have sent the said

file to Central Crime Station, Hyderabad. There is an endorsement to

the said effect in Crime No.154/2020. There are several factual

aspects which are to be investigated into by the Investigating Officer.

The petitioner is on anticipatory bail and, therefore, he can co-operate

with the Investigating Officer in concluding the investigation in the

present crime. Instead of doing so, the petitioner herein has

approached this Court by way of filing the present application. There

is no suppression of fact. The transactions under the loan agreement

and the present transaction are entirely different. Just because there is

an allegation that the dispute is civil in nature, the present complaint

cannot be quashed.

6. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, on instructions,

would submit that the delay, jurisdiction and that a Company is not

added as accused are all the matters to be investigated by the

Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer has recorded the

statements of three witnesses. The petitioner instead of co-operating

with the Investigating Officer filed the present petition to quash the

proceedings in the present complaint. With the said contentions, the KL,J Crl.P. No.5832 of 2020

learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for

respondent No.2 sought to dismiss the present petition.

7. The above stated facts would reveal that the petitioner and

respondent No.2 are known to each other. The said acquaintance is

not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that there is a loan agreement

between the petitioner and respondent No.2 dated 27.06.2019, and

respondent No.2 has paid an amount of Rs.23.00 lakhs towards loan

under the said agreement. According to the petitioner, he has repaid

the said amount, which is a factual aspect to be investigated into by

the Investigating Officer. In the counter filed by the Banjara Hills

Police Station in an anticipatory bail application filed vide Crl.M.P.

No.1843 of 2020 on the file of the IV Additional Metropolitan

Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, there is a reference of complaint dated

16.09.2020 lodged by respondent No.2 herein. According to the

learned counsel for the petitioner, there is improvement with regard to

the allegations made in the present complaint dated 05.10.2020, when

compared to the complaint dated 16.09.2020. Perusal of the counter

filed in Crl.M.P. No.1843 of 2020 and the present complaint dated

05.10.2020 would show that there are no serious contradictions.

Prima facie, it appears that the said contradictions are minor in nature.

All the said aspects are factual aspects, which are to be investigated

into by the Investigating Officer. The delay in lodging the complaint

is also a matter to be investigated into as held by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court.

KL,J Crl.P. No.5832 of 2020

8. As stated above, prima facie, there are specific allegations

against the petitioner herein. Initially, respondent No.2 has extended

an amount of Rs.23.00 lakhs to the petitioner herein, and according to

the petitioner, he has repaid the same. As discussed supra, it is a

factual aspect which has to be investigated into by the Investigating

Officer during the course of investigation. According to respondent

No.2, the petitioner herein has induced respondent NO.2 saying that

he would get a post in BPCL by using his contacts with present

leaders in power including Mr. C. Venkataraman and, thus, he has

taken an amount of Rs.1.00 Crore. Admittedly, the said amount is a

big amount. There is specific mention in the complaint that she has

sent the said amount through RTGS to his account from her account in

ICICI Bank vide cheque No.001787. There is also specific allegation

that when respondent No.2 enquired him with regard to fulfillment of

his promise in arranging post as well as repayment of said amount, the

petitioner threatened her. Thus, there are several factual aspects to be

investigated by the Investigating Officer. Prima facie, the contents of

the complaint constitute the offence alleged against the petitioner

herein.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to the

transaction of BITCOIN and entries in the Passbook, would submit

that the petitioner herein has repaid the entire amount and he is not

due and liable to pay any amount to respondent No.2. By placing

reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in Vesa Holdings P. Ltd. v.

KL,J Crl.P. No.5832 of 2020

State of Kerala1, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit

that every breach of contract would not give rise to an offence of

cheating and only in those cases breach of contract would amount to

cheating where there was any deception played at the very inception.

If the intention to cheat has developed later on, the same cannot

amount to cheating. In other words for the purpose of constituting an

offence of cheating, the complainant is required to show that the

accused had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making

promise or representation. Even in a case where allegations are made

in regard to failure on the part of the accused to keep his promise, in

the absence of a culpable intention at the time of making initial

promise being absent, no offence under Section 420 of the Indian

Penal Code can be said to have been made out. By referring to the

said principle, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that

there are contradictions in the complaint dated 16.09.2020 and in the

present complaint dated 05.10.2020. In the present complaint, there is

no mention about the initial inducement, and according to respondent

No.2, the loan agreement is nothing to do with the allegations made

against the petitioner in the present complaint. Therefore, it is a

factual aspect to be investigated into by the Investigating Officer

including the contradictions as contended by the learned counsel for

the petitioner.

. (2015) 8 SCC 293 KL,J Crl.P. No.5832 of 2020

10. By placing reliance on the principle laid down by the Apex

Court in Sushil Sethi v. The State of Arunachal Pradesh2, the

learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the police have

not made the company as an accused though the amount was alleged

to have been transferred into company's account. Whereas, the

learned counsel for respondent No.2 would submit that in the said

case, the company entered into an agreement after ten years.

Therefore, the principle laid down in the said decision is not

applicable to the facts of the present case.

11. In view of the said submission and also in view of the

specific allegation against the petitioner herein and also the contention

of the petitioner that the amount was transferred into the company

account and that the company is not an accused etc., are all factual

aspects which are to be investigated into by the Investigating Officer.

It is also relevant to note that the Investigating Officer is having

power to add or delete any person during the course of investigation.

Therefore, on the said ground also, Crime No.154 of 2020 cannot be

quashed.

12. In Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar v. The State of

Maharashtra3 the Apex Court has categorically held that quashing

criminal proceedings was called for only in a case where complaint

did not disclose any offence, or was frivolous, vexatious, or

. (2020) 3 SC 240

. AIR 2019 SC 847 KL,J Crl.P. No.5832 of 2020

oppressive. If allegations set out in complaint did not constitute

offence of which cognizance had been taken by Magistrate, it was

open to High Court to quash same. It was not necessary that, a

meticulous analysis of case should be done before trial to find out

whether case would end in conviction or acquittal. If it appeared on a

reading of complaint and consideration of allegations therein, in light

of the statement made on oath that the ingredients of the offence are

disclosed, there would be no justification for High Court to interfere.

The defences that might be available, or facts/aspects which when

established during trial, might lead to acquittal, were not grounds for

quashing complaint at threshold. At that stage, only question relevant

was whether averments in complaint spell out ingredients of a

criminal offence or not. The Court has to consider whether complaint

discloses that prima facie, offences that were alleged against

Respondents. Correctness or otherwise of said allegations had to be

decided only in trial. At initial stage of issuance of process, it was not

open to Courts to stifle proceedings by entering into merits of the

contentions made on behalf of Accused. Criminal complaints could

not be quashed only on ground that, allegations made therein appear

to be of a civil nature. If ingredients of offence alleged against

Accused were prima facie made out in complaint, criminal proceeding

shall not be interdicted.

13. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, as

discussed supra, prima facie, there are specific allegations against the KL,J Crl.P. No.5832 of 2020

petitioner herein. The details of inducement, modus operandi, details

of payment of amount etc. are specifically mentioned in the

complaint, and prima facie constitute a cognizable offence.

Therefore, according to this Court, it is not a fit case to quash the

proceedings by exercising power of this Court under Section 482 of

Cr.P.C. The petitioner failed to establish any ground to quash the

proceedings in the said crime and accordingly the present petition

fails.

14. In the result, the present Criminal Petition is dismissed.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the

Criminal Petition shall stand closed.

_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J 5th March, 2021 Mgr