Hasanali Krupa Rao vs State Of Telangana
2022 Latest Caselaw 5220 Tel

         THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

            CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3885 OF 2020

ORDER:

1. This petition is filed to quash the proceedings against the

petitioners in CC No.959 of 2019 on the file of Judicial First Class

Magistrate, Gajwel, Medak District.

2. The petitioners are questioning the correctness of the charge

sheet filed against them for the offences under Sections 420, 406

and 506 of IPC.

3. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the defacto

complainant/2nd respondent namely Dasari Abraham Sam Sunder

is that the petitioners are family friends. The 1st petitioner asked

the 2nd respondent to join in his dairy farm business and in order

to increase the business, 20 buffaloes from Haryana State were

purchased at the cost of Rs.11.00 lakhs and handed over to the

petitioners with a condition to share 50% of the profit. The

petitioners also gave their 1000 sq.yds of land on lease to the 2nd

respondent, who built a shed in the said leased out land. The

petitioners were running the business. However, they never parted

with the profit from the milk and thereby cheated the 2nd

respondent. Since the petitioners were not giving 2nd respondent's

share of the money from the milk sold from the buffaloes given by

the 2nd respondent, when the 2nd respondent tried to take back his

buffaloes, the petitioners threatened him with dire consequences,

for which reason, criminal complaint was filed in the Court of

Judicial First Class Magistrate, Gajwel. The said complaint

was referred to the police, Manoharabad Police Station for the

purpose of investigation.

4. The police, Manoharabad Police Station registered the

complaint for the offences under Sections 420, 406 and 506 of IPC

against the petitioners. The Investigating Officer seized 14

buffaloes under the cover of panchanama from these petitioners

and handed over to the 2nd respondent under acknowledgment.

Further, during the course of investigation, it was revealed that the

2nd respondent purchased buffaloes from Haryana State at the cost

of Rs.11.00 lakhs and also leased out the land to the petitioners for

a period of eight years. Though the petitioners agreed to pay money

at Rs.80/- per liter, they failed to do so, even though, each buffalo

gives 12 liters of milk per day.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that firstly

the private complaint being referred by the police is in violation of

the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P1. On facts, even admitting

that there was business transaction between the petitioners and

the 2nd respondent, such breach of contract if any would not

amount to criminal offence and predominantly the case is of civil

nature. It is for the 2nd respondent to approach the Civil Court and

file for damages. He relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of ALPIC Finance Ltd., v. P.Sadasivan in Appeal

(Crl.) No.194 of 2001, dated 16.02.2001, wherein it is held that

breach of trust may be both civil and criminal offence, it has to be

ascertained whether it would be predominantly civil wrong or would

amount to criminal offence. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court

held that when there was no allegation in the complaint that there

was fraud or dishonest inducement at the inception, it would not

amount to deception and consequently, not liable to be charged for

the offence of cheating punishable under Section 420 of IPC.

6. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submits that

these are questions of facts which have to be ascertained only

during the course of trial and at the very inception, this Court

cannot interfere and quash the proceedings. Both the accused

(2015) 6 SCC 287

and defacto complainant will have ample opportunity to adduce

evidence in the trial Court and prayed to dismiss the petition.

7. The fact that the 2nd respondent purchased certain buffaloes

and also took lease of the premises of land from the 1st petitioner

and consequently, petitioners running dairy business are not in

dispute. According to the 2nd respondent, he had purchased the

buffaloes and handed over to the petitioners and wanted share in

the profits. There is no allegation that the milk was sold to

customers and consequently failed to give the profits to the 2nd

respondent. The 2nd respondent only on the basis of assumption

states that the petitioners have made money by selling milk.

However, in the process of running a dairy farm, there are several

expenses that would be incurred and it cannot be ascertained as to

the quantity of the milk that yielded every day and what was the

profit margin of the petitioners/accused. In the said

circumstances, on the basis of assumption that the petitioners

must have made profits and did not part with the 50% of the

profits, cannot be made basis to arrive at the conclusion of guilt

against the petitioners.

8. For the offence of cheating, there should have been

misrepresentation, pursuant to which, a person must have been

induced and consequently, deliver some property believing such

misrepresentation. Even according to the 2nd respondent he had

invested in the business of dairy and wanted returns from the

petitioners. It cannot be quantified as to the milk that was yielded

from the buffaloes. When the case of the 2nd respondent is that he

had purchased buffaloes and handed over to the petitioners in the

course of business, no offence of cheating is made out. It is stated

during the course of investigation that the Inspector has seized the

live cattle from the petitioners and handed over to the 2nd

respondent. To attract an offence of criminal misappropriation, it

has to be shown that the property, which has to be entrusted, is

subject to criminal misappropriation. In this case, it is live cattle

and dairy farm was being run. On the basis of the complaint given

by the 2nd respondent, the police have seized live cattle and handed

over to the 2nd respondent. For the said reasons of none of the

ingredients under Section 406 of IPC are made out.

9. Except stating that the petitioners threatened when asked for

the cattle and to return the amount, there are no specific instances

or dates given on which date the altercation ensued and what

exactly transpired on the said dates. In the absence of any specific

allegations, vague assertions that the petitioners threatened the

defacto complainant would not be sufficient to prove a charge

under Section 506 of IPC for criminal intimidation.

10. In the present facts and circumstances, the trial is

unwarranted and would only consume the court's time. It is

apparent from the facts of the case that the allegations made are on

the basis of assumptions and none of the ingredients of the

provisions under Sections 420, 406 and 506 of IPC are made out.

11. For the aforementioned reasons, this Court deems it

appropriate to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

12. In the result, the proceedings against the petitioners in CC

No.959 of 2019 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Gajwel, Medak District are hereby quashed.

13. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed.

_________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 20.10.2022 kvs

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

CRIMINAL PETITION No.3885 of 2020

Dt.20.10.2022

kvs