Y.V.Praveen Rao vs State Of Telangana And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 643 Tel

              HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

        CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.7940 AND 7779 OF 2021

COMMON ORDER:

      Both these Criminal Petitions are filed under Section - 482 of

Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.1390 of 2013 (new C.C.

No.241 of 2014) on the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Karimnagar.

      2. The petitioners herein are arraigned as accused Nos.1 and 2 in

the above said C.C.         The offences alleged against them are under

Sections - 420, 406, 500 and 506 read with 34 of IPC.

      3.   Heard Mr. Kadaru Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the

petitioner in both the petitions, and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor

appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 - State.         Despite service of

notice, none appears of respondent No.2.

4. As per the charge sheet, the allegations levelled against the

petitioners are as under:

i) Respondent No.2 - de facto complainant is the registered owner

of Excavator manufactured by Kobelco SK 2010 LC Machine No.YQ

11-06381 having purchased from the original owner Mr. Narahari Jagga

Reddy under an agreement of sale dated 18.03.2011.

ii) The petitioners herein - accused Nos.1 and 2 are son and father

respectively and they are running business engaged in executing civil

contract works at various places in the Country.

KL,J Crl.P. No.7940 & 7779 of 2021

iii) The petitioners herein approached respondent No.1 to sell the

excavator, on which respondent NO.1 informed them about the finance

amount due to the Indus-Indu Bank and expressed his inability to sell the

said excavator to them.

iv) Then, the petitioners assured him to clear the finance amount

of Rs.17,50,000/- in installments every month and undertook to pay an

amount of Rs.7,00,000/- to respondent No.2.

v) Believing the words of the petitioners, respondent No.2 sold his

excavator to them, on which the petitioners paid an amount of Rs.4.00

lakhs to respondent No.2 and assured him to pay the balance of Rs.3.00

lakhs and also the finance instalments regularly.

vi) After delivery of the aforesaid excavator, the petitioners paid

only Rs.66,000/- to the financier and failed to pay the balance

installments and so also the balance amount of Rs.3.00 lakhs.

vii) On the persistent demands made by the financier, respondent

No.2 had to pay Rs.2,64,000/-.

viii) On the requests made by respondent No.2, the petitioners

have issued a cheque bearing No.139039, dated 30.04.2012 towards

installments and when the same was presented for encashment, the said

cheque was bounced with an endorsement 'funds insufficient'.

KL,J Crl.P. No.7940 & 7779 of 2021

ix) Despite requests made by respondent No.2, the petitioners

failed to pay the balance amount and the amount covered under the said

cheque, on which the petitioners threatened him with dire consequences.

5. Respondent No.2 has filed a complaint under Section - 200 of

Cr.P.C. before the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, and the

learned Magistrate has referred the same to the police for investigation

and report.

6. Accordingly, Karimnagar I Town Police Station has registered

a case in Crime No.225 of 2012 against the petitioners for the aforesaid

offences and took up investigation. The Investigating Officer, during the

course of investigation, recorded the statements of respondent No.2 as

LW.1, the eye-witnesses, Mr. Vangala Anji Reddy and Mohd. Fasahath,

as LWs.2 and 3.

7. On consideration of the entire material, the Investigating

Officer has laid the charge sheet against the petitioners herein for the

aforesaid offences.

8. Mr. Kadaru Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners,

referring to the statements of witnesses, more particularly, de facto

complainant, recorded under Section - 161 of Cr.P.C. would submit that

respondent No.2 himself has no title or proper document with regard to

the said excavator and, therefore, question of sale of the same to the

petitioners does not arise. The said facts would reflect in the charge

KL,J Crl.P. No.7940 & 7779 of 2021

sheet and also the statement of respondent No.2 (LW.1). He has referred

to the agreements dated 01.12.2011 and 02.12.2011.

i) Referring to the contents of the charge sheet and the statements

of witnesses, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the

disputes between the petitioners and respondent No.2 are contractual and

civil in nature and the same lack the ingredients of the offences alleged

against them. Respondent No.2 is trying to criminalize the civil disputes.

ii) With the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel for the

petitioners sought to quash the proceedings against the petitioners herein.

9. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, on

instructions, would contend that the Investigating Officer, on

consideration of the entire material on record including the statements of

the listed witnesses, laid the charge sheet against the petitioners. There

are specific allegations against the petitioners herein which are triable in

nature and the petitioners have to face trial and prove their innocence.

Instead of doing so, they have filed the present petitions and, therefore,

he sought to dismiss the present petitions.

10. As stated above, respondent No.2 has purchased the subject

vehicle under an agreement of sale dated 18.03.2011 by obtaining loan

from Indus-IND Bank, Karimnagar Branch. The petitioners herein have

approached him with a request to sell the said vehicle, on which

respondent No.2 informed them about the finance obtained by him from

the said bank. The petitioners herein have agreed to clear the said loan

KL,J Crl.P. No.7940 & 7779 of 2021

and further agreed to pay an amount of Rs.7.00 lakhs to respondent No.2

herein. As per the charge sheet, the petitioners have paid only an amount

of Rs.4.00 lakhs to respondent No.2 and an amount of Rs.66,000/- to the

said bank towards installments amount and, thereafter they failed to pay

the remaining installments. On the insistence made by the bank,

respondent No.2 had to pay an amount of Rs.2,64,000/- to the said bank

towards installments. When respondent No.2 insisted the petitioners

about the said payment and also the remaining amount, the petitioners

have issued a cheque, but the same was dishonoured with an

endorsement 'funds insufficient'. Thus, prima facie, there are specific

allegations against each of the petitioner and the contents of the charge

sheet prima facie constitute the offences alleged against the petitioners

herein. They are triable issues. The petitioners have to face trial and

prove their innocence.

11. The contention of the petitioners that respondent No.2 himself

is claiming that he had purchased the subject vehicle under an agreement

of sale dated 18.03.2011 and, therefore, he has no right to transfer the

said vehicle in favour of the petitioners. The said defence will be

considered during trial by the trial Court, but not in a petition under

Section - 482 of Cr.P.C.

12. The Apex Court in Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar v. The State

of Maharashtra1 has categorically held that quashing criminal

proceedings was called for only in a case where complaint did not

. AIR 2019 SC 847

KL,J Crl.P. No.7940 & 7779 of 2021

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 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.

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

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

. AIR 2021 SC 931

KL,J Crl.P. No.7940 & 7779 of 2021

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.

14. In view of the above discussion and the principle laid down in

the aforesaid decisions, the petitioners herein failed to make out any case

to quash the proceedings in the aforesaid C.C. and, therefore, the present

petitions are liable to be dismissed.

15. Both the Criminal Petitions are accordingly dismissed.

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

criminal petitions shall stand closed.

__________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J 15th February, 2022 Mgr