Telangana High Court
Veerapuneni Madhusudhan Rao vs The State Of Telangana on 9 July, 2024
Author: Juvvadi Sridevi
Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.538 of 2019
ORDER:
Petitioner/A-2 in C.C.No.781 of 2017 on the file of X Metropolitan
Magistrate, Kukatpally at Miyapur (subsequently renumbered as
C.C.No.5896 of 2022 on the file of XII Additional Metropolitan
Magistrate at Kukatpally), has filed this criminal petition seeking to quash
the proceedings against him in the said case, registered for the offences
under Sections 420 and 506 of IPC.
2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri Srinivasa Rao Pachwa,
appearing for Respondent No.2 and perused the record.
3. The contents of the complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent are that
the petitioner herein was his Ex.-Office colleague and when he was in
search of a house for purchase, the petitioner has introduced him to a
builder by name B.Venkateswara Rao (A-1), who was constructing an
apartment/building. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent had booked a flat and
paid to A-1, a substantial amount of Rs.17 Lakhs out of Rs.18 Lakhs and
the balance amount of Rs.1 Lakh was to be paid at the time of handing
2 JS, J
over of the flat. It is alleged in the complaint that in spite of receiving
huge amount from him, the builder (A-1) had sold the said flat to someone
else, and thus, cheated him in connivance with the petitioner herein.
Basing on the said complaint, the aforesaid case has been registered.
4. Case of the petitioner is that the entire transaction of purchasing the
house was between the 2nd respondent and A-1 and that as the 2nd
respondent was his Ex.-Colleague, he had merely introduced him to A-1,
and except that, he has nothing to do with the transaction between the 2nd
respondent and A-1. Accordingly, he prayed to quash the proceedings
against him.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand,
contended that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are to be tried
and since the matter is at the stage of trial, proceedings cannot be quashed
at this stage.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent has also
contended that since the matter is at the stage of trial and as the petitioner
herein, in collusion with A-1, has cheated the 2nd respondent, proceedings
against the petitioner cannot be quashed and the criminal petition is liable
to be dismissed.
3 JS, J
7. It is the admitted case of the de facto complainant/2nd respondent
himself that the petitioner has merely introduced him to A-1, who was
constructing an apartment building. The contents of the complaint also
disclose that the amount was paid by the 2nd respondent to A-1 only and
the petitioner herein has not received any amount from the 2nd respondent
and the 2nd respondent has also failed to establish any partnership between
the petitioner and A-1 so as to make him liable for the charges levelled.
8. Learned counsel for petitioner has relied on a judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Vesa Holdings Private Ltd., and another v. State of
Kerala and others 1, wherein, it is held that the offence of cheating is not
made out when there was no deception played from the very beginning and
if the intention to cheat is developed later on, the same cannot amount to
cheating. It is further held that the complainant has to show the fraudulent
or dishonest intention of the accused at the time of making promise or
representation and in the absence of culpable intention, the failure on the
part of accused to keep his promise, does not make out offence of cheating.
The said judgment is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case, as
there was no fraudulent or dishonest intention on the part of petitioner
herein at the time of introducing the 2nd respondent to A-1.
2015 LawSuit (SC) 279
4 JS, J
9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent has
relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manik B. v.
Kadapala Sreyes Reddy and another 2, wherein, it is held that at the stage
of deciding an application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., it is not
permissible for the High Court to go into the correctness or otherwise of
the material placed by the prosecution in the charge sheet and the Court
would exercise its power to quash the proceedings only if it finds that
taking the case as its face value, no case is made out at all. There is no
dispute with regard to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
this judgment. In the present case also, taking the charges at face value, no
case is made out against the petitioner. The mere introduction of a person
does not make the person so introducing liable for the transactions that
took place without his knowledge.
10. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent has also relied on another
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Yogesh Kumar Holkar v. State
of Madhya Pradesh and another3, wherein, it is held that once a charge
sheet is filed against the accused, all material allegations should be
considered by the trial Court on the basis of the material collected during
the investigation and adduced in evidence. The principle laid down by the
2023 LiveLaw (SC) 642
2024 SCC OnLine SC 1223
5 JS, J
Hon'ble Supreme Court in this judgment is applicable when there is some
material against the accused that was collected during the course of
investigation. However, when there is not an iota of evidence against the
accused, he should not be subjected to the cumbersome exercise of facing
trial merely on the ground that a formal charge sheet has been filed in the
matter.
11. As stated above, the only reason for registration of case against the
petitioner is that he introduced the 2nd respondent to A-1. The
2nd respondent, being a Chartered Accountant, is expected to be wise
enough while making payments to A-1 and he cannot simply make
allegations against the petitioner, who has merely introduced him to A-1.
It is also to be seen that the 2nd respondent did not obtain any
acknowledgement from A-1 in proof of paying considerable amount of
Rs.17 Lakhs. He stated that the amount has been paid only on oral
agreement for purchasing the flat, which is not expected of an accountant
professional. The complainant has further failed to show any evidence that
A-1 and A-2 are partners in constructions and they both together entered
into transaction with him.
12. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the charges
levelled against the petitioner and accordingly, this criminal petition is
6 JS, J
allowed, and the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.781 of 2017
on the file of X Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally at Miyapur
(subsequently renumbered as C.C.No.5896 of 2022 on the file of XII
Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Kukatpally), are hereby quashed.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________
JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J
Date:09.07.2024
Ksk
