Partly allowed

P.U.Bhaskar v. State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC28 Jan 2024CRLP/120/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh allowed the criminal petition in part under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It quashed proceedings under Section 420 IPC for cheating deemed to be a civil breach of contract but directed police to investigate and file a charge sheet for offences under Sections 355 and 506 IPC against the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

The offence under Section 420 IPC was quashed; police were directed to proceed with investigation and file a charge sheet for Sections 355 and 506 IPC.

P.U.Bhaskar Vs State of Ap — Cheque Dishonour | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI MONDAY ,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARY i TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR | PRESENT ^

¶2

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

¶3

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 120 OF 2019

¶4

Between;

¶5

Palkuru Udaya Bhaskar, S/o. Late Palukuru Venkata Ramaiah Aged about 41 years. R/o. D.No.C/228-1, Chinnakothapalli, H/o. Gangaperuru Village, Ontimitta Mandal, Kadapa District.

¶6

...Petitioner/Accused-3

¶7

AND

¶8

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, Amaravathi.

¶9

Mamidi Subbarayudu, S/o. Narayana Swamy, Aged about 63 years, R/o. Chinna Kothapalli, H/o. Gangaperuru Village, Ontimitta Mandal Kadapa District.

¶10

...Respondents/Complainant

¶11

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the FIR No.228 of 2018 Registered by the Station House Officer, Vontimitta Police Station, Vontimitta, YSR Kadapa District.

¶12

I.A. NO; 1 OF 2niq

¶13

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the. High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings including^the arrest of the petitioner, in FIR No.228/2018 Registered by the Station House Officer, Vontimitta P.S., Vontimitta, YSR Kadapa District.

¶14

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri.V.V.N. Narasimham, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri. Sravan Kumar Naidana. Advocate for the Respondent No.2.

¶15

The Court made the following ORDER:

¶16

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

¶17

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 120 OF 2019

¶18

ORDER:

¶19

The present Criminal Petition is filed to call for^therecords pertaining to F.I.R.No.228 of 2018 before the Vontimitta Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 420, 355, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and to quash the same.

¶20

The 2^^^ respondent herein lodged a report to the police alleging that one Katta Sushelamma W/o. Venkata Ramana^has executed an agreement to sale in favour of the petitioner^hereinand later they have registered the sale deed in favour^{ofthepetitioner} herein, who is arrayed as accused No.3 in the aforesaid^crimeand the accused No.l, 2 and 3 have insulted and threatened^to dire consequences. On the aforesaid allegations, the police have registered the aforesaid crime under Sections 420,^355,506read with 34 of IPC.

¶21

Now, the present criminal petition is filed to quash the proceedings on the ground that the ingredients of Section^420of IPC has no application and if at all there is any breach^ofcontract, that the 2’^'^ respondent has to go for civil remedy^andthe 2^^ respondent/complainant to give a cloak of criminal offence to

¶22

¶23

matters which are essentially in civil nature and further contended that the petitioner has not cheated fraudulently or intentionally and ingredients of Section 420 of IPC has no application. 4. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.3 would urge to quash Section 420 of IPC. The Supreme^Court in S.W. Palanitkar And Ors vs State OfBihari held that: Every breach of contract may not result in a penal offence.” 5. Whereas in the present case, it is only a breach of contract where the accused No. 1 has failed to register document in favor of the 2nd respondent/complainant. Therefore, there is no mensrea or fraudulent intention or dishonest intention, on the part of the accused No.l and the same cannot be attributed to the petitioner herein, who is the accused No.3, as he has not entered any agreement with the 2nd respondent/complainant and he is only the purchaser of the property from accused No.l. The ingredients^of 420 of IPC have no application to the present facts of the case. 6. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the ingredients of Section 420 of IPC have no application, as the petitioner has not cheated the 2nd respondent/complainant.

¶24

2002 (I) see 241

¶25

¶26

There was specific allegation for the offences under Sections 355 and 506 of IPC. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the proceedings under Section 420 of IPC and directing the police to proceed to investigate and file charge sheet for the offences under Sections 355, 506 and read with 34 IPC, against petitioner/accus^ed No.3 herein. Accordingly, the offence under Section 420 IPC is hereby quashed.

¶27

With the aforesaid direction, the Criminal Petition is allowed in part quashing the proceedings under Section 420 of IPC, directing the police to proceed for the offences punishable^under Sections 355 and 506 of IPC against the petitioner/accused^No.3 and it is needless to say that the police shall proceed against the other accused in accordance with law.

¶28

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending^inthis criminal petition shall stand closed.

¶29

To.

¶30

//TRUE COPY//

¶31

SD/- A VENUGOPALA RAO ASSISTANT f^lSTRAR SECTION OFFICER

¶32

The Station House Officer, Vontimitta Police Station Vontimitta, YSR Kadapa District.

¶33

One CC to Sri. V.V.N. Narasimham, Advocate o ^ [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Sravan Kumar Naidana, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. at Amaravathi. [OUT]

¶34

Three C.D Copies.

SSL

sree fvU^'

/ ’

HIGH COURT

DATED:29/01/2024

ORDER

CRLP.NO.120 OF 2019

O ft''
¥ oec^

PARTLY ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION

¶44

t&3
. -3
t)

P.U.Bhaskar v. State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.U.Bhaskar v. State of Ap

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

T.Raja Sekhar Reddy Vs State of Ap

Muddada Rajagopala Rao, Vs Srikesh Balaji, IAS

Gunda Venkata Ravi Kumar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Y Venkat Rao Vs State of Ap

k.dayanandam Vs State of Ap

Dudekula Vali Vs State of Ap