D.B. Mohan Rao vs The Telangana State
2022 Latest Caselaw 2857 Tel

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 2857 Tel
Judgement Date : 16 June, 2022

Telangana High Court

D.B. Mohan Rao vs The Telangana State on 16 June, 2022

Bench: Satish Chandra Sharma, Abhinand Kumar Shavili

 THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                                             AND
       THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
                                   W.A.No. 381 of 2022
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)

        The       present       writ     appeal       is    arising   out   of   order

dated 31.03.2022, passed by the learned Single Judge, in

W.P.No.16458 of 2022.

        The facts of the case reveal that the writ petitioner, as stated

in the writ petition, has entered into a registered agreement leasing

out the property admeasuring 11901 square feet in Plot No.265,

Survey No.126, situated at Deepthisri Nagar Colony,Madinaguda,

Ranga Reddy District, to one P.Prabhakar Rao.

        It is further stated in the writ petition that P.Prabhakar Rao,

without informing the writ petitioner, has vacated the premises and

in those circumstances, a complaint was lodged on 16.12.2021 to

the Station House Officer, Miyapur Police Station, Cyberabad, and

the Station House Officer, on 29.01.2022, has informed the writ

petitioner that it is purely a civil dispute between the parties and in

those circumstances, the writ petition was preferred.
                                           ::2::



         The learned Single Judge, holding that there is a civil dispute

between the parties, had dismissed the writ petition. Paragraphs 8

to 14 of the order passed by the learned Single Judge read as under:

         "8.     The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of VIJAY
      KUMAR GHAI & ORS. vs. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL
      & Ors.1, relying on its own decision in HRIDAYA RANJAN
      PRASAD VERMA vs STATE OF BIHAR2, has held that as the
      fraudulent or dishonest intention is the basis of the offence of
      cheating, a mere breach of contract is not in itself a criminal offence
      and cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating, and it gives
      rise to the civil liability of damages.
         9.      Also, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SYED YASEER
      IBRAHIM vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.3 has
      categorically observed that a dispute of civil in nature cannot be given
      the color of a criminal wrong doing by registering a case against the
      appellant therein.
         10.     Further, this Court in the case of CH.ANJANEYULU vs.
      THE STATE OF TELANGANA, REP by P.P., & ANR4, placing
      reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in HRIDAYA
      RANJAN PRASAD's case(2 supra), held that intention to deceit
      should be in existence at the time when the inducement was made,
      but if a representation was made and subsequently, it was not been
      kept, criminal liability cannot be foisted and the only remedy which
      the complainant acquires is the remedy for breach of contract in a
      Civil Court.
1
    2022 Live Law (SC) 305
2
    2000(4) SCC 168
3
    2022 SCC online SC 271 = AIR ONLINE 2022 SC 270
4
    Order dt.17.03.2022 in Crl.P.No.10576 of 2017
                                     ::3::



      11.    Thus, if the lessee viz., the 3rd party, had abandoned the
   property in breach of the terms of the lease deed after a decade of
   entering into, it cannot be said that there existed intention to deceit
   from the commencement of the said lease, so as to attract criminal
   breach of trust.       Mere breach of the covenant of the lease
   deed/contract by the 3rd party does not by itself amount to criminal
   breach of trust for the petitioner to invoke the criminal jurisdiction of
   the respondents-authorities for registering a case. On the other hand,

it is always open for the petitioner to invoke dispute resolution mechanism, provided under the said lease deed.

12. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, and in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and also the view taken by this Court as noted above, the impugned notice issued by the 3rd respondent holding that the matter is civil in nature, does not suffer from any infirmity calling for interference.

13. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.

14. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed."

In the considered opinion of this Court, the dispute between

the parties is certainly a civil dispute and the learned Single Judge

was certainly justified in dismissing the writ petition. This Court

also does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by

the learned Single Judge. However, liberty is granted to the ::4::

appellant to take recourse to the other remedies available under

law.

The writ appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand

dismissed.