Telangana High Court
Mr.Vijayaraghavan Devaraj 2 ... vs The State Of A.P. Rep., By Its Pp ... on 2 November, 2021
Bench: G.Radha Rani
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.11427 of 2013
ORDER:
This petition is filed by the petitioners - accused Nos.1 to 3 to
quash the proceedings in CC No.732 of 2012 on the file of III
Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad.
2. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondent No.2 -
de facto complainant filed a private complaint on the file of III
Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar, stating that she
was one of the Directors of M/s.Tekibez Soft Solutions (India) Pvt.
Ltd., registered under the Companies Act and the said company was
having branches all over the world and one such branch was at
London. The petitioner No.1 established a company, by name,
Conciro Pvt. Ltd., in London and the petitioners No.2 and 3
established a company, by name, Pemba Consultants Limited at
London and the said companies were sister concerns and were dealing
with the same line of business as that of the company of the de facto
complainant. Petitioners No.1 to 3, who were acquainted with the de
facto complainant, approached her and her husband and requested to
lend 8,800 U.K. Pounds to the petitioner No.1 and 8,800 U.K. Pounds
to petitioners No.2 and 3. The de facto complainant and her husband
transferred the said amounts to them. On repeated demands of the de
facto complainant and her husband, the petitioners No.1 and 2 issued
cheques but, the said cheques were dishonoured. When the de facto
Dr.GRR,J
complainant tried to contact the petitioners No.1 and 2, they were not
answering her telephone calls. The de facto complainant traced the
whereabouts of the petitioners in India and when she questioned about
the dishonour of cheques, they threatened her and her husband with
dire consequences. On 12.2.2012, when the complainant was at her
office at Ramanthapur, petitioners No.1 to 3 came to the said office at
3.00 PM, broke the furniture and assaulted the de facto complainant
and abused her in filthy language and also ransacked the office.
3. The said complaint was referred to the police for
investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and FIR No.241 of 2012
was registered by the Uppal Police under Sections 420, 427, 448, 323
and 506 IPC and after completing the investigation, filed charge sheet
against the petitioners, arraying them as Accused Nos.1 to 3 and the
said charge sheet was numbered as CC No.732 of 2012.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Public
Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-de facto
complainant.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued at length
contending that the alleged acts of cheating are said to have been
taken place in London. No enquiry or trial could take place in India
except with the previous sanction of the Central Government as per
Section 188 Cr.P.C. As the sanction from the Central Government
was not obtained, the offence under Section 420 IPC could not be
Dr.GRR,J
enquired into or tried in India. The alleged offences of trespass,
criminal intimidation had been invented only to bring the petitioners
within the jurisdiction of the local police. The incidents of trespass,
ransacking the office of the complainant and the criminal intimidation
were said to have been taken place on 12.02.2012, whereas the private
complaint was filed on 06.03.2012 with a delay of three and half
weeks. The long and unexplained delay in filing the complaint would
raise grave doubt about the occurrence of the incident. The complaint
would go to show that the disputes, if any, which were civil in nature
and had been given criminal colour. Even according to the
complainant, the cheques were given by Conciro Solutions Limited.
Without arraying the said company as accused, no complaint could be
maintained against the petitioners, as the company had a distinct legal
entity different from its Directors.
6. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner No.1
was married to the petitioner No.2 on 17.02.2012 at Vizag. On
12.02.2012 there was a function at the house of PW.1 in Chennai in
connection with the marriage. The petitioner No.1 was not at
Hyderabad as on the date of alleged offence. There were no
independent witnesses to the so called incident of trespass. LWs.1 to
3 were employees of Tekbiz Soft Solutions Limited while LW.4 was
not an eye witness. The criminal proceedings were maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the
accused. He relied upon several judgments on various aspects of
Dr.GRR,J
private complaints and the duty of the Court, and investigation and
duties of Investigating Officer, delay in filing FIR/private complaint,
and the necessity of sanction under Section 188 Cr.P.C. and on the
aspect that two offences could not be clubbed into one offence and on
the aspect that the company must be made as a party, and on trespass,
and on the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court for
quashing the FIRs/Calendar Cases.
7. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that charge sheet had
been filed and the allegations made against the petitioners could be
decided by the trial Court.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 - de facto
complainant submitted that the lacunas in investigation, if any, could
be brought to the notice of the trial Court and could be decided by the
trial Court.
9. Perused the record. The record would disclose that the
police after investigation filed charge sheet. The private complaint as
well as the charge sheet would disclose cognizable offences against
the petitioners. The plea of alibi is a matter of fact which shall be
proved before the trial Court by adducing evidence. The judgments
relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners are
distinguishable on facts. As the power of quashing the criminal
proceedings should be exercised very sparingly and with
circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases as per the judgment of
Dr.GRR,J
the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal1 and the
petitioners could raise all these contentions before the trial Court at
the stage of hearing of the charges, if necessary, by filing an
application under Section 239 Cr.P.C., it is considered fit to dismiss
this petition.
10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________
Dr. G. RADHA RANI, J
November 02, 2021
KTL
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
