Syed Mohidoddin vs The State Of Telangana
2024 Latest Caselaw 2050 Tel

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 2050 Tel
Judgement Date : 6 June, 2024

Telangana High Court

Syed Mohidoddin vs The State Of Telangana on 6 June, 2024

           THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA

               CRIMINAL PETITION No.390 of 2024


ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') by the

petitioner/accused No.1seeking to quash the proceedings against

him in Cr.No.1451 of 2023 dated 26.12.2023 before

theGachibowli Police Station, Cyberabad District, for the alleged

offences punishable under Sections 406, 409 and 420 of the

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC').

2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent

No.2/de facto complainant lodged a complaint stating that he

along with seventeen others are in the field of sheep trading and

their work is sheep breeding. It is alleged that under the scheme

of the Department of the Animal Welfare in the Telangana State,

they handed over 133 units of sheeps to one Moinuddin (accused

No.1) and his son who allegedly came to their village to purchase

the sheep units and that they also took the aadhar details and

bank account credentials of respondent No.2 and seventeen

others assuring that the amounts of 133 units of sheeps would be

credited to their bank accounts. However, even after considerable

time when the respondent No.2 and others did not receive any

SKS,J Crl.P.No.390of 2024

amounts, they approached the Department and came to know

that the said amounts were already credited to different bank

accounts and upon receiving such information, the respondent

No.2 along with seventeen others came to know that their

amounts were credited to bank accounts that do not belong to

them.

3. On receipt of said complaint, the Police commenced

investigation and arrayed the petitioner as accused No.1.

Aggrieved thereby, this Criminal Petition is filed.

4. Heard Sri M.Venkata Swamy, learned counsel for

petitioner/accused No.1, Sri S.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor, appearing for respondent No.1 - State, and Sri V.Ravi

Kiran Rao, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Sri

V.Rohith, learned counsel for respondent No.3. None appeared for

respondent No.2.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner/accused No.1, submitted

that there is no incriminating evidence or material evidence

against the petitioner, such as, receipt of selling of sheep units

which proves his involvement in the case. He contended that the

entire process of payment would be performed by the Government

Officials and the amounts for purchase of sheeps would be

SKS,J Crl.P.No.390of 2024

directly deposited in the bank accounts of the sheep sellers,

therefore, there is no role of petitioner in the said process and he

is a mere contractor.He asserted that due to previous conflicts,

the ADs of the Department bore grudge against the petitioner as a

result of which he is falsely implicated in this case. Therefore,

prayed this Court to allow the Criminal Petition by quashing the

proceedings against the petitioner.

6. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel

for petitioner/accused No.1 and submitted that the matter needs

full-fledged investigation as there are serious allegations against

the petitioner/accused No.1 for cheating respondent No.2 and

seventeen others. As such, prayed this Court to dismiss the

Criminal Petition.

7. Learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.3

submitted that the petitioner/accused No.1 was paid for

purchasing sheeps and he has received the amount from the

Government for purchase of 133 units of sheepsbut he has not

distributed the same to the respondent No.2 and others. He

asserted that only after thorough investigation the role of

petitioner/accused No.1 would come out, as such, quashing

proceedings against him at this stage would amount to abuse of

SKS,J Crl.P.No.390of 2024

process of law. Therefore, prayed this Court to dismiss the

Criminal Petition.

8. Having regard to the rival submissions made and on

perusing the material placed on record, it is noted that the

primary contention of learned counsel for petitioner/accused No.1

is that the role of petitioner/accused No.1 is limited to the extent

of purchasing sheep units and he is only involved in the said

business and is no way concerned with the credit of amounts in

the bank accounts of sellers, whereas, in the counter affidavit

submitted by learned senior counsel appearing for respondent

No.3,it is mentioned that the petitioner/accused No.1 is the

Managing Director of Lolona Livestock Company who sent his

brother's son Syed Ikramuddin (accused No.2) to the place of

respondent No.2 and the accused No.2 in turn, along with

accused Nos.3 to 6 purchased sheeps from respondent No.2 and

other sellers and assured them that the amounts would be

credited to their bank accounts but thereafter, the accused

persons managed to change the aadhar cards and bank

credentials of sellers with the help of company employees and

received the said amounts. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent

No.2 approached the Police and lodged a complaint. It is

significant to take into account that to quash the proceedings

under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, the Court has to see whether the

SKS,J Crl.P.No.390of 2024

averments in the complaint prima facie shows that they constitute

the offences as alleged by the Police against the petitioner.

9. 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."