N. Purushotham Reddy vs The State Of Telangana And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 1797 Tel

            HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

            CRIMINAL PETITION No.3234 OF 2022

ORDER:

Heard Mr. Pulimamidi Shashidhar Reddy, learned counsel for

the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for

respondent No.1 and perused the record.

2. Petitioner herein is accused No.3 in C.C. No.208 of 2016 on

the file of II Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.

Nagar. The offence alleged against him is under Section - 420 of IPC.

3. In the charge sheet, it is specifically alleged that respondent

No.2's son sent an amount of Rs.75.00 lakhs through bank accounts of

accused No.1 and the petitioner herein - accused No.3, who are doing

real-estate business, to purchase the land in Survey Nos.155/A and

155/AA of Lakkaram Village, Choutuppal Mandal, Nalgonda District.

With the said amount, accused No.1 had purchased theland in the

name of M/s. Sribrundavan Info Developers Society. Accused No.1

and the petitioners have got registered the land in the name of accused

No.2 instead of respondent No.2's son's name. Then, respondent

No.2 asked them to get the name of her son included in the above

KL,J Crl.P. No.3234 of 2022

property, or else to refund the amount. On 23.02.2014, accused No.1

has executed an undertaking on hundred rupee Non-judicial stamp

paper stating that he would get the land registered in her son's name,

or else would refund the amount. But, he has been dodging the matter

on one pretext or the other for the last one year. Therefore, all the said

acts of the accused including the petitioner amount to cheating.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner herein would submit that

the Investigating Officer has not recorded the statement of the victim.

Without recording her statement, the Investigating Officer has laid the

charge sheet against the petitioner. Referring to the receipts dated

05.04.2013 and 18.04.2013 he would submit that the wife of Mr.

Mandadi Shekar Reddy had received the said amount.

5. As stated above, there are specific allegations against the

petitioner herein. The receipt of Rs.14.00 lakhs by the petitioner is

not in dispute. The Calendar Case is of the year 2016, whereas, the

petitioner herein has filed the present petition after elapse of six (06)

years. Be that as it may, the petitioner has to take all his defences and

the contentions raised by him including the payment etc., before the

trial Court during trial. The said defences cannot be considered at this

KL,J Crl.P. No.3234 of 2022

stage in a petition under Section - 482 of the Cr.P.C. as held by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar v. The State

of Maharashtra1, wherein 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

oppressive. If allegations set out in complaint did not constitute

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

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

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

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

on a reading of the 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 the 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 a complaint at the threshold.

At that stage, the only relevant question was whether averments in the

complaint spell out ingredients of a criminal offence or not. The

. AIR 2019 SC 847

KL,J Crl.P. No.3234 of 2022

Court has to consider whether complaint discloses any prima facie

offences that were alleged against the respondents. Correctness or

otherwise of the said allegations has to be decided only during trial.

At the 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 the accused. Criminal complaints could not be quashed only

on the 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.

6. In Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private Limited v. The

State of Uttar Pradesh2, the Apex Court referring to the earlier

judgments rendered by it has categorically held that the High Courts

in exercise of its inherent powers under Section - 482 of Cr.P.C has to

quash the proceedings in criminal cases in rarest of rare cases with

extreme caution.

7. In view of the above legal position and the discussion, this

Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.208 of 2016

against the petitioner herein.

. AIR 2021 SC 931

KL,J Crl.P. No.3234 of 2022

8. The present Criminal Petition is accordingly dismissed.

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

criminal petition shall stand closed.

_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J 8th April, 2022 Mgr