Dismissed

Ravi Ramesh v. The State of A.P.

Andhra Pradesh HC2 Sept 2022CRLP/2640/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court dismissed criminal petition seeking quashing of cheating case. Held that allegations involve disputed questions of fact and economic offences with societal impact cannot be deemed civil in nature, thus trial must proceed.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition disposed of without order quashing the case; petitioners dispensed from appearance unless trial court requires presence.

Ravi Ramesh Vs The State of A.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2640 of 2018

¶3

ORDER:-

¶4

The Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.7 of 2018 on the file of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Excise, Ongole. A complaint has been filed against the petitioners/A3 and A4 and others and the same was taken on file as C.C.No.7 of 2018 by the learned Magistrate by an order dated 11.01.2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 405, 408, 405, 407 r/w 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶5

¶6

Brief facts of the case are that A1 is the

¶7

business concern being run by A2 to A5 in the name and style of “Ravi Rangaiah Cold Storage”. A2 is the Chairman and Managing Director, and A3 to A5 are the Directors of, A1 Company. A2 to A5 are close relatives. 2^nd respondent/ de facto complainant raised Bengal gram in their fields and harvested the same. They deposited 286 kgs of Bengal gram in A1 cold storage in the month of March and April, 2012 worth of Rs.53,50,245/-. After depositing the stocks, A2 issued storage bonds to the complainant and others to avail loans from A6 to meet their expenses and they availed loans in the year 2012. Since there was low market value of the stocks deposited with the

¶8

¶9

accused, the complainant and others could not sell the commodity, thereby they could not discharge the loans to A6. Later, when the market rate of Bengalgram is raised, the complainant and others expecting profits, approached the accused and requested to verify the stocks. Then the accused did not allow to verify their stocks stating that the stocks were sold by 6^th accused. Then the complainant and others approached A6 and asked about the same and they came to know that stocks were not auctioned. The accused, instead of safeguarding the stocks, illegally, lifted the stocks without consent or knowledge of the complainant and others. Aggrieved by the same, the complainant resorted in filing the complaint

¶10

¶11

against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 405, 406, 407, 408, 420 r/w 120-B of IPC.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that even accepting the entire accusations to be true, no prima facie offences are made out against the petitioners for the reason

¶13

that the petitioners are the Directors of A1 company and no way concerned with the transactions that have taken place. He further submitted that the said stock, which has been deposited by the Company has been placed before the bank authorities and when the agriculturists are not able to pay the amounts to the bank, the

¶14

¶15

bank is at liberty to alienate products, which is in their custody.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that though notice has been served on 2^nd respondent, none appeared on his behalf.

¶17

On the contrary, learned Assistant Public

¶18

Prosecutor submitted that these are all questions of fact and the same have to be decided in the course of trial. He also submitted that the products, which were deposited, have been disposed of by the bankers and the money is derived out of the sale of the product has been misappropriated and thereafter A6, who is the

¶19

banker, has issued notice to the agriculturists to

¶20

pay the amounts. He further submitted that it is a

¶21

¶22

clear case of cheating and the same has to be decided in the course of trial.

¶23

Perused the record.

¶24

Admittedly, allegations in the private

¶25

complaint and sworn statement go to show that the ryots deposited 286 kgs of Bengal gram in the A1

¶26

cold storage worth of Rs.53,50,245/-. After depositing the stocks, A2 issued storage bonds to the complainant and others to avail loans from A6 to meet their expenses and they availed loans in the year 2012. Since there was low market value of the stocks deposited with the accused, the complainant and others could not sell the commodity thereby they could not discharge the loan to A6. Later, when the market rate of

¶27

¶28

Bengalgram is raised, the complainant and others expecting profits, approached the accused and requested to verify the stocks and then the accused did not allow to verify their stocks stating that the stocks were sold by 6^th accused. Then the complainant and others approached A6 and asked about the same and they came to know that stocks were not auctioned. The accused, instead of safeguarding the stocks, illegally, lifted the stocks without consent or knowledge of the complainant and others. Again A6 issued notice to the defacto complainant and others to repay the loans which was availed by the riots.

¶29

Since the contentions raised by the

¶30

learned counsel for the petitioners are all disputed

¶31

¶32

questions of fact, this Court is not in a position to conduct a roving enquiry to decide the factual aspects in a proceeding under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

¶33

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor

¶34

relied upon the judgment in Daxaben Vs. State of

¶35

Gujarat and others¹ held as follows:

¶36

“ In State of Maharashtra v. Vikram Anantrai Doshi 18, this Court held:-

¶37

“ availing of money from a nationalised bank in the manner, as alleged by the investigating agency, vividly exposits fiscal impurity and, in a way, financial fraud. The modus operandi as narrated in the charge-sheet cannot be put in the compartment of an individual or personal wrong. It is a social wrong and it has immense societal impact. It is an accepted principle of handling of finance that whenever there is manipulation and cleverly conceived contrivance to avail of these kinds of benefits it cannot be regarded as a case having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil character. The ultimate victim is the collective. It creates a hazard in the financial interest of the society. The gravity of the offence creates a dent in the

¶38

1 2022 SCC SC 936

¶39

¶40

economic spine of the nation. ...” 17 (2014) 9 SCC 466 18 (2014) 15 SC 29”44.”

¶41

In CBI v. Maninder Singh19, this Court held:-

¶42

“In economic offences the Court must not only keep in view that money has been paid to the bank which has been defrauded but also the society at large. It is not a case of simple assault or a theft of a trivial amount; but the offence with which we are concerned was well planned and was committed with a deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of consequence to the society at large. To quash the proceeding merely on the ground that the accused has settled the amount with the bank would be a misplaced sympathy. If the prosecution against the economic offenders are not allowed to continue, the entire community is aggrieved.”

¶43

In view of the facts and circumstances of

¶44

the case, this Court is not in a position to interfere

¶45

with the proceedings in C.C.No.7 of 2018 on the file

¶46

of learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Excise, Ongole.

¶47

¶48

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is

¶49

disposed of. However, since 1^st petitioner is aged

¶50

about 70 years and 2^nd petitioner is a student, the appearance of the petitioners is dispensed with. However, the petitioners shall attend the trial Court on those dates when the learned Magistrate feels that their presence is necessary.

¶51

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in the Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.

¶52

_________________________________ JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

¶53

Date: 02.09.2022 KLPD

Ravi Ramesh v. The State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi Ramesh v. The State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vimala Radha Krishnan Vs State of Ap.

Vimala Radhakrishnan Vs State of Ap.

Karumuri Naga Muneendra Vs KarumuriMutyala Naga Venkata Lakshmi Narasimham at Nagababu

P.Ganesh Vs State of Ap

N.J.Ramesh Vs State of Ap

Yarramsetti Ganapathi Rao at Ganapathi Vs State of Ap