Partly allowed

Nellore Ramesh v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC18 Oct 2022CRLP/388/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court partially allowed a criminal petition filed to quash proceedings under Sections 420 and 506 IPC. It held that Section 420 IPC was not made out due to lack of deceitful intention regarding document retention but declined to quash proceedings under Section 506 IPC requiring trial.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition partly allowed; proceedings under Section 420 IPC quashed; proceedings under Section 506 IPC maintained for trial.

Nellore Ramesh Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Quashing and FIR | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

¶3

Criminal Petition No.388 of 2020

¶4

Order:

¶5

This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed to quash the proceedings in Crime No.1 of 2020 of Tirumala II Town Police Station, Tirupati Urban, Chittoor district, against the petitioners/A1 to A3.

¶6

A case has been registered against the petitioners herein and another for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 506 IPC. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the de facto complainant is a license holder of Shop No.4, Saptagiri Rest House area, Tirumala. He states that his father is having immovable properties in Tirupati and those properties were acquired by the TTD and allotted the shops in favour of the de facto complainant and his family members. Accordingly, since the date of allotment, the de facto complainant and his family members are running the shops belonging to the TTD. In the year 2012, one A. Anandaraju, Assistant Executive Officer, Panchayat Raj and Revenue Department, has created a new file and issued license vide proceedings in ROC No.2/1344/AEO(Rev.)/Tml/2011, dated 05.02.2012 and 20.06.2012 in

¶7

favour of one T. Subbalakshmamma. It is further alleged that though the license has been given in favour of Subbalakshmamma, the said

¶8

¶9

Anandaraju, who is accused No.2, being an employee of TTD, was running the said shop by way of benami through accused No.1. After coming to know of the said fact, the de facto complainant has resorted in filing a complaint before the Executive Officer, CVSO, TTD, Tirumala. Upon such complaint, the authorities of TTD conducted an enquiry and cancelled the license in Shop No.6 issued in favour of Subbalakshmamma and taken over the said shop in favour of TTD.

¶10

It is pertinent to mention here that the de facto complainant has approached accused No.1 for advancing some amount through his agent M/s. Divya Foods, Tirupati, the same was accepted and released the amount of Rs.15.00 Lakhs through bank account on 05.05.2016. Thereafter, the amount was returned to M/s. Divya Foods on 07.05.2016 to the back account. Before releasing the said amount, accused No.1 has collected four signed blank cheques as well as signed blank promissory notes and signed white papers. Accused No.1 also collected registered document No.2241 of 2013, SRO, Tirupati, relating to immovable property pertaining to the de facto complainant. The crux of the complaint is that non return of the documents which are collected by accused No.1 from the de facto complainant at the time of releasing the amount. In respect of the same, a complaint has been lodged before the authorities. The de facto complainant further stated

¶11

¶12

in the complaint that on 18.12.2019 accused Nos.1 to 3 have abused the de facto complainant in filthy language and threatened to kill him. By virtue of the acts committed by the accused, the de facto complainant submits that he is not in a position to run the business. Upon such complaint, police registered a case in Crime No.1 of 2020 for the aforesaid offences.

¶13

Heard. Perused the record.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that even accepting that the entire accusations to be true, as there is no averment of cheating on the part of the accused, no offence under Section 420 IPC and Section 506 IPC will be made out as against the petitioners, for the reason that non-return of the documents in favour of the de facto complainant not in any way come within the purview of Section 420 IPC. She also urges that the offence under Section 506 IPC would not attract as against the petitioners for the reason that no time and date has been mentioned in respect of the same.

¶15

On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent has fairly conceded to that extent that the offence under Section 420 IPC is not attracted, but, as far as the offence under Section 506 IPC is concerned, the same would certainly attract as against the petitioners.

¶16

¶17

And he has taken the Court to the complaint filed by the de facto complainant.

¶18

Admittedly, there is money transaction between the de facto complainant and accused No.1. At the time of said transaction, accused No.1 has collected certain blank cheques and the documents pertaining to immovable property belonging to the de facto complainant. It is quite evident from the complaint copy and there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the de facto complainant has paid the amounts to accused No.1. Despite the fact that accused No.1 has received the amount from the de facto complainant, the documents have not been returned to him. Even accepting the said accusations to be true, there is no element of cheating on the part of the accused in not returning the documents in favour of the de facto complainant.

¶19

Section 420 IPC reads as follows.

¶20

“ 420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property .—Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either

¶21

¶22

description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

¶23

A perusal of the said provision goes to show that there should

¶24

be dishonest intention on the part of the accused to deceive to deliver any property to any person.

¶25

A reading of the said provision goes to show that, merely because the documents pertaining to the de facto complainant have been retained, it would not in any way come within the purview of Section 420 IPC. There should be guilty intention on the part of the accused in retaining the said documents without passing on the documents in favour of the de facto complainant. The said intention is absent on a perusal of the accusations contained in the complaint. In the absence of such deceitful intention, this Court holds that an offence under Section 420 IPC would not be made out as against the petitioners. Continuation of the proceedings in respect of the offence under Section 420 IPC would be malicious and vexatious. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is inclined to quash the proceedings in respect of the offence under Section 420 IPC.

¶26

In respect of the offence under Section 506 IPC, there is an accusation to that extent that on 18.12.2019 the accused trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant, abused him in filthy

¶27

¶28

language and threatened to kill him. A bare reading of the complaint goes to show that there is an accusation to that extent. The truth or otherwise of the said accusation should be decided during the course of trial. It is premature, where this Court would not be in a position to conduct a roving enquiry into the disputed questions of fact. In view of the accusations that contained in the FIR, this Court feels that in respect of offence under Section 506 IPC is concerned, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings.

¶29

Accordingly, Criminal Petition is partly allowed quashing the proceedings in respect of the offence under Section 420 IPC against the petitioners herein.

¶30

________________________ K. SREENIVASA REDDY, J.

¶31

Date:18.10.2022 Nsr

¶32

¶33

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

¶34

Criminal Petition No.388 of 2020

¶35

Date:18.10.2022

¶36

Nsr

Nellore Ramesh v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nellore Ramesh v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Parra Ramachandra Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Appikonda Yada Kishore, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Shaik Jahangeer Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Chava Ramakrishna reddy and 7 others Vs State of Andhra Pradesh and another

Bhimavarapu Balaji Durga Prasad Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

R.N.sharma Vs The state of ap.