Smt.R.Ananda Devi vs The State Of Telangana
2023 Latest Caselaw 1329 Tel

     THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

             WRIT PETITION NO.42503 OF 2022

ORDER:

The writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution

of India by the petitioner questioning the order dated

10.07.2017 passed in S.R.No.5209 of 2015 in Crime No.254 of

2014 by the learned IV Additional Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate at Hyderabad dismissing the protest application

filed by the petitioner.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents No.1

and 2. Perused the material on record.

3. The criminal case was filed against the

respondents/Accused alleging that they have cheated the

petitioner herein in a sale transaction. During the course of

investigation, it was found that Rs.90,00,000/- was agreed for

sale of property and entire Rs.90,00,000/- was paid. However,

according to the learned Magistrate after the period of nine

months, the complainant was claiming that only

Rs.40,00,000/- was paid and Rs.50,00,000/- was due. The

said claim made by the complainant without any proof was not

accepted. However, there was proof that the entire amount of

Rs.90,00,000/- was paid and on that basis the learned

Magistrate thought it fit to dismiss the protest application filed

by the petitioner herein and accepted the final report.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed by the three

Judge Bench in India Carat Private Limited Vs State of

Karnataka and another1 wherein it is observed that the

Magistrate can ignore the conclusion arrived at by the

investigating officer and independently apply his mind to the

facts emerging from the investigation and take cognizance of

the case. In the present application, the learned Magistrate had

gone through the evidence produced by the

respondents/accused and also the contentions of the petitioner

herein and by a detailed order found that the ingredients under

Section 420 and 406 are not made out.

(1989) 2 SCC 132

5. The other judgment relied upon by the learned counsel

for the petitioner is in H.S. Bains Director Small Saving -

cum - Deputy Secretary Vs. The State (Union Territory of

Chandigarh)2. In the said judgment also, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court was dealing with the powers of the Magistrate

in directing the issuance of process. The procedure

contemplated in both the decisions is not in dispute. However,

on the said fact there is no case for the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that

there is livelihood of settlement if the notices are issued to the

respondents/accused. The present writ petition is filed with a

delay questioning the orders dated 10.07.2017 and there are

no reasons assigned for the delay of six years in filing the said

writ petition. I do not find any infirmity of the learned

Magistrate refusing the protest petition and accepting the final

report of the police after the accused have produced relevant

documentary evidence to show that entire amount covered by

the same transaction must be paid. There are no merits in the

writ petition and liable to be dismissed.

Criminal Appeal No.687 of 1980

7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand

closed.

________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 20.03.2023 tmk

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

WRIT PETITION NO.42503 OF 2022

Date: 20.03.2023 tmk