Pacifica Companies vs The State Of Telangana
2025 Latest Caselaw 2318 Tel

Telangana High Court

Pacifica Companies vs The State Of Telangana on 19 February, 2025

            THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
               CRIMINAL PETITION No.1022 OF 2019
ORDER:

1 This criminal petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C was filed

seeking to quash the order dated 19.10.2016 on the file of the Court

of the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad,

taking cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 420,

506, 344 and 406 of IPC and issuing summons to the petitioners in

C.C.No.1374 of 2016 instituted on a private complaint filed by the

second respondent herein.

2 Heard Sri S.Niranjan Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing

on behalf of Sri N.Naveen Kumar, the learned counsel for the

petitioners, Sri D.Subrahmanyam, learned counsel representing Sri

Y.Balaji, learned counsel for the second respondent and

Ms.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the

State and perused the record.

3 The gravamen of the complaint is that the second respondent

is the owner of VSR Contractors engaged in the activity of

earthmoving, excavation, dewatering, stone cutting and digging the

cellars and allied activities. While so, in the year 2008, the fourth

petitioner, introducing himself as a senior project manager of the

first petitioner company, requested the second respondent to do

the contract work of the first petitioner company. Basing on the

said request, the second respondent gave his quotation for the

earthmoving and cellar work. The petitioners agreed his terms and

conditions and the rate and allotted earthmoving work to the

second respondent, vide work order dated 26.9.2008. As per the

said work order, the land is 1 ½ acres and the second respondent

has to excavate and remove the disposal of excavated material at

the site. The second respondent has completed the entire contract

work as per the terms and conditions of the work order and after

completion of the work, the petitioners approved and issued final

certificate of payment, dated 08.02.2010 as per which the balance

amount payable by the petitioners was Rs.77,69,833/-. Out of the

said amount, the petitioners paid an amount of Rs.29,40,000/- on

10.6.2010 and Rs.5.00 lakhs on 18.11.2010 finally. Thus, the

balance amount is Rs.43,29,833/-. However, the petitioners have

not paid the amount in spite of giving an assurance letter dated

09.6.2010. As the matter stood thus, the fourth petitioner invited

the second respondent for making payment. After going there,

petitioner Nos.3 to 5 and their henchmen started abusing the

second respondent in filthy language and beat him with hands and

legs and warned him that they will not give balance amount and if

he comes again they will see his end. The petitioners cheated the

second respondent by not paying the balance amount even though

he has completed the entire work as per the work order. They also

threatened the second respondent with dire consequences by

wrongfully confining him and they also beat him. Thus, the

petitioners are liable for punishment under Sections 420, 506, 344

and 406 IPC. Hence the complaint.

4 On presentation of the above complaint, the learned III

Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, forwarded the

same to police, Banjara Hills for investigation and report under

Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. whereupon, the police, Banjara Hills,

registered the same as a case in Cr.No.240 of 2015 and after

conducting investigation and recording the statement of the second

respondent, filed charge sheet before the court below. On that the

learned III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, by

the impugned order dated 19.10.2016 had taken cognizance of the

offences punishable under Sections 420, 506, 344 and 406 of IPC. As

stated supra, the said order is impugned in this criminal petition

filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

5 The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is

that the transaction complained of pertains to the year 2008 and

even as per the complaint, between 2010 and 2015, there was no

correspondence between the parties, which itself demonstrates

that no amounts were due to the second respondent and more so

the alleged claim, if any, is barred by limitation. He further

submits that despite issuance of no due certificate by the second

respondent himself, he is claiming more amounts, therefore, the

malafide intention of the second respondent is apparent on the face

of it, yet the police failed to take it into consideration. It is his

further submission that the alleged dispute raised in the complaint

relate to the alleged non-payment which are essentially of civil in

nature out of a written contract, therefore, the complaint is

nothing but an attempt of the second respondent in giving a civil

dispute a cloak of criminal offence. He further submitted that if at

all the allegations made in the complaint are believed to be true,

the same would not attract the offence under Section 420 IPC as

there was no mens rea on the part of the petitioners to cheat the

second respondent right from the inception. He further submitted

that there was no element of offence under Section 406 IPC as

there was no criminal breach of trust on the part of the petitioners,

therefore, in the absence of proof of cheating and criminal breach

of trust, the offences under sections 344 and 506 of IPC also fail.

He further submitted that the second respondent having suffered

interim orders in O.S.No.98 of 2015 instituted by the petitioners on

the file of the Court of the IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court,

Hyderabad, had resorted to file the complaint. Hence he prayed to

quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

6 In support of his contentions, the learned senior counsel relied

on the following judgments:

1. Pepsi Foods Limited vs. Special Judicial Magistrate1,

2. G.Sagar Suri vs. State of U.P 2

3. Vijay Kumar Ghai vs. State of West Bengal 3

7 On the other hand, Sri D.Subrahmanyam, learned counsel

representing Sri Y.Balaji, learned counsel for the second respondent

submitted that throttling the case at the bud stage is not advisable

(1998) 5 SCC 749

(2000) 2 SCC 636

(2022) 7 SCC 124

since the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the

complaint would come to light only upon conducting a full fledged

trial and that the learned trial Court has already taken cognizance

of the offences, this petition is liable to be dismissed.

8 The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, also sailing along

with the learned counsel for the second respondent, submitted that

this is not the stage to quash the proceedings since the allegations

made in the complaint are serious in nature and he further

submitted that though the investigating officer has sent notices to

the petitioners under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. on 04.9.2024 and

18.9.2024, (acknowledgment of receipt of the same was filed into

this Court) the petitioners have not turned up to explain their case.

Hence he too prayed to dismiss the criminal petition.

9 The offences alleged against the petitioners are under

sections 420, 506, 344 and 406 of IPC. The allegations levelled in

the charge sheet filed by the investigating officer prima facie

disclose the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 506 and

344 of IPC only. Insofar as the offence under Section 406 of IPC is

concerned, this court is of the view that there is no element of

criminal breach of trust. The said Section of law reads as under:

"405. Criminal breach of trust.--Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or willfully suffers any other person so to do, commits "criminal breach of trust".

10 Since in the present case there is no entrustment of any

property by the second respondent to the petitioners. All the

allegations made by the second respondent revolve around the

payment of balance amounts to be paid by the petitioners to the

second respondent only. Whether the petitioners have any ill

motive right from the beginning i.e. date of entering into the work

order or whether the petitioners have cheated the second

respondent and whether the petitioners have threatened the second

respondent with dire consequences by confining him, are all the

matters to be elicited during the course of trial and this Court is not

inclined to go into all those factual matrix in the petition filed

under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At best the duty of this Court in a

petition filed under Section 482 CrPC is to see whether there is any

prima facie material against the petitioners and if so whether a

direction can be given to the accused to face the rigour of trial.

11 Insofar as the contention of the learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor with regard to service of notice upon the petitioners

under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. is concerned, as seen from the record,

the Sub-Inspector of Police Banjara Hills Police Station, Hyderabad,

states that though the investigating officer sent 41-A CrPC notices

to the petitioners through registered post, the petitioners did not

appear before the investigating officer and did not cooperate with

the investigation. So also the case of the investigating officer who

investigated into the crime. But it is the contention of the

petitioners that they have submitted proper replies to the said

notices.

12 Whether the investigating officer has served the notice under

Section 41-A CrP.C upon the petitioners or whether the petitioners

have replied to the said notices properly are all factual matters of

record and have to be gone during the course of inquiry. This is not

the stage to decide the veracity of the contentions advanced by

both parties on that aspect.

13 At this juncture, it is apt to mention herein that the Hon'ble

Supreme Court has reiterated the settled principles of law as laid

down in a number of judgments, including M/s.Neeharika

Infrastructure (P) Ltd., Vs. State of Maharashtra and others 4 that

the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with

circumspection, in the rarest of rare cases and that the Court

cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness

or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint, the criminal

proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage, quashing

of a complaint/FIR should be an exception and rarity than an

ordinary rule, ordinarily the Courts are barred from usurping the

jurisdiction of the police. However, the inherent power of the

Court is recognized to secure the ends of justice or prevent abuse

of process under Section 482 Cr.P.C., and that the power under

Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power

requires the Court to be cautious. It casts an onerous and more

diligent duty on the Court.

14 Further, with regard to the notices under Section 41-A Cr.P.C

issued to the petitioners and the contention of the petitioners that

(2020) 10 SCC 180

they have given suitable reply is concerned, this Court is not

inclined to go into that aspect at this stage.

15 Hence and for the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the

view that the order of the learned trial Court taking cognizance

may be modified to the extent of taking cognizance of the offences

under Sections 420, 506 and 344 of IPC only and the learned trial

Court is directed to proceed with the matter in accordance with

law.

16 Accordingly, this criminal petition is allowed in part.

17 Miscellaneous petitions if any pending in this criminal petition

shall stand closed.

____________________ JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL Date: 19.02.2025 Kvsn