High Court of Andhra Pradesh criminal bench quashed criminal proceedings in C.C. No.185 of 2007 for cheating as the dispute arose from a subsequent cause of action that cannot form part of the original private complaint.
Quashed the order of the lower Court taking the case on file as C.C. No.185 of 2007 under Section 420 I.P.C.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2696 of 2007
DATE:22.07.2010
Between:
Dr.J.Yathi Raju …… Petitioner/Accused And:
State of A.P rep. By its Public Prosecutor And another.
…..Respondents/Complainants
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2696 of 2007
ORDER :
The petitioner is accused of offence punishable under Sections 406 and 420 I.P.C originally. The 2nd respondent/defacto-complainant filed private complaint in the lower Court and it was referred to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. After investigation, the police filed final report referring the case as one which is purely of civil nature. Thereupon the 2nd respondent filed protest petition in the lower Court. On the said protest petition, the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad took the case on file as C.C. No.185 of 2007 for offence punishable under Section 420 I.P.C alone against the accused.
2) Subject matter of dispute between the parties is execution of sale agreement-cum-general power of attorney deed for Rs.16,50,000/- paid by the 2nd respondent to the petitioner. It is alleged that the petitioner executed the said sale agreement-cum-general power of attorney deed by suppressing
pending civil suit O.S. No.157 of 1993 on the file of III Senior Civil Judge, Secunderabad relating to declaration of title etc., From the protest petition, it is evident that subsequent to the police filing final report, there was compromise between the parties and the 2nd respondent and the petitioner entered into cancellation deed in respect of the previous sale agreement-cum-general power of attorney deed. But, it is the present allegation that though the petitioner agreed to pay Rs.17,50,000/- for the cancellation deed, the petitioner had paid only Rs.15,00,000/- and obtained the cancellation deed promising to pay Rs.2,50,000/- subsequently. It is contended by the 2nd respondent’s counsel that the petitioner has not paid Rs.2,50,000/- and committed fraud on the 2nd respondent. In so far as subject matter of the private complaint relating to execution of sale agreement-cum-general power of attorney deed is concerned, the matter is squared up between the parties. The subsequent event of the alleged non payment of Rs.2,50,000/- is a subsequent cause of action and it cannot form part of the original complaint in which offences were alleged against the petitioner. On the protest petition filed by the petitioner, the lower Court should not have taken the case on file basing on the alleged subsequent fraud. At best, the alleged subsequent fraud may give a cause of action for the 2nd respondent to file a fresh complaint and proceed on that basis. Therefore, order dated 13.02.2007 passed by the lower Court taking the case on file for offence under Section 420 I.P.C against the accused, cannot stand in law.
3) In the result, the petition is allowed quashing proceedings in C.C. No.185 of 2007 on the file of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.
_______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J
July 22, 2010 KSH
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the criminal court below erred in taking the case on file based on an alleged subsequent cause of action regarding non-payment which arose after the original subject matter was squared up.
Whether a fresh criminal complaint should be filed for a subsequent fraud rather than quashing the existing proceedings.
Whether the criminal proceedings for offence punishable under Section 420 I.P.C based on the alleged subsequent fraud can stand in law.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Dr.J.Yathi Raju
State of A.P rep. By its Public Prosecutor
2nd Respondent/Complainant
SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
