Dismissed

Peddi Srinivas Rao v. The State of A.P

Telangana HC16 Dec 2011CRLP/2224/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses a Criminal Petition for quashing an FIR alleging cheating under Sections 403, 406, and 420 IPC arising from a joint venture dispute. The court held that since the de facto complainant's version suggests work was allotted after cancellation and funds were not repaid, the matter requires investigation.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition dismissed; matter held to require investigation.

Peddi Srinivas Rao Vs The State of A.P — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR

¶2

Crl.P. No. 2224 of 2009

¶3

DATED: 16.12.2011

¶4

Between:

¶5

P. Srinivas Rao .. Petitioner And 1. The State of A.P. .. Respondents 2. C. Anil Babu

¶6

O R D E R:-

¶7

1. In this Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who is shown as the accused in Cr.No. 249 of 2009 of Panjagutta Police Station, Hyderabad is seeking relief of quashing the F.I.R. in the said case. The offences alleged are those punishable under Sections 403, 406 & 420 IPC.

¶8

2. Certain facts admitted by both counsel should be noted for deciding this petition. Initially, under a joint venture agreement dated 18.06.2005, the petitioner and the de facto complainant undertook to execute certain works for a company called M/s. Gammon India Limited and that work pertains to the Government of Andhra Pradesh. It is not necessary to go into other details, but subsequently the petitioner and the de facto complainant entered into a Deed of Retirement and Dissolution dated 18.06.2005 whereunder the de facto complainant is said to have withdrawn from the joint venture. Thereafter, the same was informed to M/s.Gammon India Limited by the partners in the joint venture through their letter dated 02.07.2005. Consequently, M/s.Gammon India Limited also by its letter dated 06.07.2005 informed the petitioner and the de facto complainant that it has cancelled the agreement whereunder it entrusted its work to the joint venture of the petitioner and the de facto complainant. 3. The plea of the de facto complainant as amplified by his counsel -

¶9

Sri A. Ramalingeswara Rao is that even after the above cancellation the petitioner made the complainant work at his site by investing a sum of Rs.4.00 crores and thereafter suddenly the petitioner prevented him

¶10

from entering the site and carrying on with his work and refused to pay for the work done by him and on this premise the de facto complainant has alleged that the petitioner cheated him by making him to part with a huge amount of Rs.4.00 crores. The other offences are alleged to be connected with the main offence of cheating.

¶11

4. On the other hand, Sri A. Gangadhar Chamatry, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that admittedly, the joint venture was cancelled by a Deed of Retirement and Dissolution dated 18.06.2005 and M/s.Gammon India Limited also recognized it and cancelled the work, by its letter dated 06.07.2005 and consequently the de facto complainant cannot have any grievance and that it is also stated that the plea of the de facto complainant that he was entrusted with the work even after the cancellation is false and if at all the de facto complainant has any grievance, he has to work out his remedies on the civil side by seeking recovery of damages or amounts allegedly due and that the complaint does not disclose any criminal offence, and therefore, FIR should be quashed.

¶12

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that initially the case was registered as Crime No.249 of 2009 at Panjagutta Police Station, but it was subsequently transferred to Central Crime Station, Hyderabad where it is registered as Cr.No. 191 of 2009 and the matter is pending.

¶13

6. It should be noted here that the de facto complainant filed a counter wherein he admitted the above Deed of Retirement and Dissolution and also cancellation, but submits that those documents were brought into existence for some purpose relating to taxation and even thereafter, the petitioner made the de facto complainant to carry out the work in the site by investing huge amounts running to the extent of Rs.4.00 crores and he suddenly prevented the de facto complainant from taking up the work and not paying the money due to him and thereby committed the offence of cheating.

¶14

7. The de facto complainant’s version is that the petitioner has

¶15

committed the offence of cheating and therefore, there is no ground to quash the FIR.

¶16

8. In support of his contention that an FIR can be quashed if it involves purely a civil dispute, petitioner’s counsel relied upon three decision of the Supreme Court given in Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttarancha l^[1] , Joseph Salvaraja v. State of Gujara t^[2] and Anil Mahajan v. Bhor Industries Ltd .^[3] . 9. It is true that in all the above cases, the main principle laid down is that where the criminal complaint discloses only civil dispute the FIR should be quashed. There is no dispute about this proposition and it has been laid in the above three cases on the facts stated therein. 10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the de facto complainant relied upon another decision of the Supreme Court given in Lalmuni Devi v. State of Biha r^[4] . In the said case, the offences alleged were under Sections 419, 420 and 471 IPC. The matter in the said case pertained to execution of a gift deed and fraud was alleged and in the said case and the Supreme Court held that case cannot be quashed.

¶17

11. In the present case on the facts it should be noted that though the Deed of Retirement and Dissolution and the letter of M/s.Gammon India Limited would show that the joint venture of both the de facto complainant and the petitioner was cancelled and the work allotted by M/s.Gammon India Limited was also cancelled, still the de facto complainant’s version is that he was made to work at the site even after cancellation and was made to spend about Rs.4.00 crores and thus the petitioner has committed the offence of cheating. 12. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the de facto complainant also filed copies of various income tax returns and Form 16-A certificate for the assessment year 2009-2010 and it shows that the petitioner allotted work to the de facto complainant as SubContractor. Of course, it is true that the name of the work is not

¶18

mentioned in the Form 16-A and the petitioner’s counsel says that this does not pertain to the present work of M/s.Gammon India Limited, but the de facto complainant asserts that it pertains to the same work. Now, the question whether this pertains to the same work of M/s.Gammon India Limited or to a different work is again a matter to be investigated by the police. What should be noted is that the allegations of the de facto complainant that even after the work was cancelled, still he was made to work at the site on a representation that he would be paid for the work done and no payment was made for the work done may prima facie show the offence and nothing can be said by this Court at this stage on merits of the matter.

¶19

13. In the above situation, it becomes very difficult to accept the contention of the petitioner that no offences are made out as the matter requires investigation. It may also be noted that the investigation may ultimately lead to closure of the case or filing of the charge sheet and the petitioner need not be apprehensive on that ground as he will have every opportunity to present his case before the investigating officer also and pursue his remedies even if charge sheet is filed.

¶20

14. In the above circumstances, it follows that the above three decisions relied upon by the petitioner’s counsel cannot be of any help to him. Prima facie, the allegations and the stand of the de facto complainant shows that the matter requires investigation.

¶21

15. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the opinion that this not a fit case for interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed.

¶22

16. Regarding the arrest of the petitioner, the police may take a decision about the same keeping in view Section 41 Cr.P.C. as it stands now.

¶23

__________________ N. RAVI

SHANKAR, J

16.12.2011

bcj