Disposed

Swami Potraju v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC15 Jul 2024CRMP/773/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the final report/service of charge sheet in a case regarding alleged cheating. The court proceeded on the basis of payment of money but remitted the proceedings to the trial court to verify the existence of a compromise deed before passing any final order.

What did the court decide?

The petition is disposed of by directing the parties to file a compromise deed before the trial court if any has been arrived at; the court shall verify the deed and pass an appropriate order.

Swami Potraju Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

-1-

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

CRMP No. 773 of 2024

¶5

Swami Potraju S/o Lt. Veyarlankya Aged About 62 Years R/o Gublupad, Police Station- Bhimavaram, Town-2, District- West Godavari, Andhra Pradesh

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Sirgitti, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶9

Sajan Agarwal S/o Budhram Agarwal Aged About 56 Years R/o House No. 5/302, Dr. M. C. Verma Tower, Gali No. 1, Jarhabhatha Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

---- Respondents

¶11

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶12

For Petitioner	: Mr. Arjit Tiwari, Advocate
For Respondent No.1 /State	: Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh Saini , Panel Lawyer
For Respondent No.2	: Mr. Nikhil Wadhwani, Advocate

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal

¶14

Order on Board

¶15

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶16

16.07.2024

¶17

Heard Mr. Arjit Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh Saini, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.1 and Mr. Nikhil Wadhwani, learned counsel for the complainant/respondent No.2.

¶18

The instant petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner to quash the final report of Crime No.839/2022

¶19

-2-

¶20

registered against him at Police Station Sirgitti under Sections 420 and 120-B & 34 of IPC in Criminal Case No. 1949/2023 pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur.

¶21

In the instant petition the petitioner has prayed as below :

¶22

"1. It is therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for records of the Court below and 2. It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and quash the final report of Crime No.839/2022 registered at police station Sirgitti u/s 420 and 120-B & 34 of the Indian Penal Code and all the consequential proceedings against the petitioner in Criminal Case No.1949/2023, in the interest of justice."

¶23

The prosecution case, in brief, is that upon a complaint received from the complainant/respondent No.2, an FIR was lodged with an averment that, from 30.11.2020 to 20.08.2021 Bharat Reddy proprietor of Kamla Sai aqua traders, Bhimavarm, Andhra Pradesh purchased the complainant company's extract De-oiled Rice Bran and received the delivery of the purchased material and after making a few payments, gained the trust of the complainant following which he fraudulently restrained himself from making the further payments amounting to Rs. 1,26,13,562/- and thereafter he conspired with his acquainted four companies Nakshatra Aqua

¶24

-3-

¶25

proprietor Suresh Moka, Sanjana Enterprises proprietor Vikesh @ Vicky Agrawal, Shri Sai Siri Venella Aqua traders proprietor Swami Potraju (present petitioner), and S.S. Aqua Private Ltd. Proprietor Sagiraju Shrivani and during investigation it was found that coaccused along the above mentioned companies have defrauded the complainant/respondent No.2 in exactly the same manner and fraudulently restrained themselves from making the payment amounting to a total sum of Rs. 2,08,65,270/-.

¶26

The allegations contained in the First Information Report lodged at Police Station Sirgitti bearing Crime No. 839/2022 are completely false and concocted. The petitioner is falsely implicated in the present crime and he has never committed any offence so alleged. At this juncture entire dispute between the petitioner and complainant/respondent No.2 is of purely civil in nature which has been given a cloak of criminal offence. Hence, this petition.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the dispute between the parties was a money dispute and the petitioner has already paid the outstanding amount as it has been mentioned in the FIR to the complainant of the case. As the charge sheet has been filed before the trial Court, hence he prays for proceedings to be quashed.

¶28

Learned counsel for the private respondent states that there where 5 accused persons involved in the present case including the petitioner, out of which 2 are still absconding. So far as the petitioner is concerned, he was granted bail by this Court on

¶29

-4-

¶30

15.03.2023 in M.Cr.C. No.1349 of 2023 and states that the proceedings against the petitioner be quashed and the learned counsel for private respondent has admitted the fact that the money in question has been paid to him by the petitioner, but no compromise deed has been entered between the parties.

¶31

As the charge sheet has been submitted before the trial Court, the parties are at liberty to file a compromise deed before the trial Court concerned, who may verify the compromise deed, if any, arrived at between the parties and pass an appropriate order as the offence in question is compoundable.

¶32

With the aforesaid direction, this petition is disposed of.

¶33

Sd/Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal ) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

¶34

Ravi Mandavi

Swami Potraju v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Swami Potraju v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Leelaram Sahu Vs Smt. Yogeshwari Sahu

Vinod Kumar Tengwar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Asharam Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramlal and Ors. Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Chhedilal Agrawal Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Hemlal Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh