Mocherla Sridhar Dayal vs The State Of Telangana And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 5708 Tel

               HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

             CRIMINAL PETITION No.11560 OF 2018


ORDER:

1. This Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings against

the petitioner in CC NO.1588 of 2017 on the file of Additional Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Rajendranagar, Cyberabad Division.

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he had promised the

defacto complainant of providing job abroad. The defacto complainant

approached the petitioner on the basis of advertisement on Naukri

Website. Processing fee of Rs.5.00 lakhs was paid and the petitioner was

the Director of the company namely Pineapple Software Corporation.

Having taken the amount, the petitioner allegedly cheated the defacto

complainant without providing job as promised and misappropriated the

money that was given. On the basis of the said complaint, the police

investigated the case and found that the petitioner posted the

advertisement of Pineapple Software Corporation, USA in Naukri Website

in the year 2013 claiming 100% placement in countries like UK, USA,

Australia, Canada, Gulf, New Zealand, Malasia, Singapore, Hongkong,

Europe and other countries. He further promised that annual income of

Rs.20.00 to 30.00 lakhs would be provided after training the candidates.

Though the defacto complainant gave an amount of Rs.5.00 lakhs, the

petitioner neither provided placement nor returned the amount, for

which reason, the petitioner was cheated and after investigation, charge

sheet was filed for the offence under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC.

3. The petitioner appeared Party-in-Person and argued seeking

quashing of the proceedings against him mainly on the ground that the

company was not made as an accused since fee was paid to the

company. In accordance with the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in

the case of Sunil Sethi v. Government of Arunachal Pradesh [Criminal

Appeal No.125 of 2020, dated 31.01.2020], if the Company is not made

as an accused in the FIR or charge sheet, petitioner cannot be made

vicariously liable and has to be quashed. No ingredients of cheating are

made out and it is for the prosecution to prove that there existed

intention to cheat at the inception. Though money was received by the

company, training was imparted as promised and for various reasons of

incompetency of the defacto complainant, he could not be placed.

4. The Party in person submits that the company is registered both

with the Government of Telangana and Government of India and nearly

300 interviews were arranged, but the defacto complainant failed to clear

any of the interviews and thereafter refused to attend other interviews.

5. On the other hand, Sri S.Sudershan, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor submits that all the issues raised by the petitioner can only

be looked into after trial.

6. As seen from the complaint, the defacto complainant refers to this

petitioner with whom he contacted and it was this petitioner, who had

promised him of placement, for which reason an amount of Rs.5.00

lakhs was handed over. The fact that an amount of Rs.5.00 lakhs was

paid is not in dispute. However, the petitioner/party-in-person claims

that training was imparted and the respondent/ defacto complainant

failed to clear 300 interviews. It clearly indicates that there was no

intention on his part or on the part of the company to cheat the defacto

complainant. The defence that is raised by the petitioner regarding

imparting of training and also arranging to attend 300 interviews are not

part of the police record. All these are disputed questions of fact, which

can only be decided by the trial Court during trial.

7. Since it is alleged by the defacto complainant that he had

interacted with the petitioner and the amounts were also paid to him, not

making company as party is of no consequence. The grievance of the

defacto complainant is not against the company and consequently, the

grievance is against the petitioner, who is the Director of the company as

such, he was made as an accused. There is not only mention of

interaction with this petitioner but allegations of cheating and

misappropriation are made against this petitioner. For the said reason,

all the grounds raised by the petitioner can only be decided after giving

an opportunity to the complainant and also defence.

8. For the aforesaid reasons, there are no merits in the petition, as

such, the Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly

dismissed.

9. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any pending,

shall stand closed.

__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 08.11.2022 kvs

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

CRIMINAL PETITION No.11560 OF 2018

Date:08.11.2022.

kvs