Telangana High Court
Dr.Ranganadham vs The State Of Telangana on 23 April, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.11663 of 2023
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the petitioner/accused,
seeking to quash the proceedings against him in Crime No.291 of
2023 on the file of Abids Police Station, Hyderabad, registered for
the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, being a
frequent customer of Sri Balaji Jewellers, has taken gold and
diamond jewellery worth of Rs.2,47,75,477/- under the guise of
his son's marriage. However, despite repeated amicable attempts
from respondent No.2, the petitioner neither made payment nor
returned the gold and diamond jewellery. Based on the
complaint, a case was registered vide Crime No.291 of 2023 by
the Abids Police, Hyderabad.
3. Heard Sri T. Bala Mohan Reddy, learned Counsel for the
Petitioner and Sri S. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State.
SKS,J
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there
is no such allegation against the petitioner to attract any of the
offences alleged and prayed to allow the Criminal Petition by
quashing the proceedings against the petitioner/accused.
5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
for respondent No.1-State opposed the submissions of the
learned counsel for the petitioner stating that respondent No.2
believing petitioner/accused entrusted gold and diamond
jewellery worth of Rs.2,47,75,477/- from March, 2023 to
September, 2023 and failed to make payment of the same.
Hence, he prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition.
6. Having regard to the rival submissions of both the
counsel, this Court has perused the material available on record.
Admittedly, the case is at the stage of the investigation. The
averments of the complaint show that the petitioner is a regular
customer of the said Jewellery store for the last 40 years and
respondent No.2 entrusted the gold and diamond jewellery. It is
pertinent to note that there was verbal agreement between the
petitioner and respondent No.2 that payments would be made
SKS,J
after selection of the Jewellery. However, the petitioner neither
paid the amounts nor returned the gold and diamond jewellery
and also avoided the calls and messages of respondent No.2. As
such, it cannot be concluded that the averments does not
constitute the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC and
investigation is yet to be completed.
7. At this stage, it is pertinent to note the Judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs.
Surendra Kori 1 , wherein in paragraph No.14 it is held as
follows:
"The High Court in exercise of its powers under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. does not function as a Court of appeal or
revision. This Court has, in several judgments, held that the
inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., though wide,
has to be used sparingly, carefully and with caution. The
High Court, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., should normally
refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the
entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the
evidence has not been collected and produced before the
Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are
of wide magnitude and cannot be seen in their true
perspective without sufficient material."
8. In view of the above discussion as well as the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Surendra Kori (supra),
this Court does not find any merit in the criminal petition to
(2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155
SKS,J
quash the proceedings against the petitioner and the same is
liable to be dismissed.
9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also
stand closed.
_______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date: 23.04.2024
gms
