Allowed

Atul , Atul Shah v. Kancherla Anjaneyulu

Telangana HC4 Feb 2011CRLP/7875/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court quashed the FIR against specific petitioners (brokers and buyers) in a Section 420/406 IPC case. It held that since there was no privity of contract with the complainant and no evidence of cheating or misappropriation by these specific accused, proceeding against them would constitute an abuse of the process of law.

What did the court decide?

FIR in Cr.No.206 of 2008 quashed insofar as it relates to petitioners 1 to 4/A4 and A6 to A8.

Atul , Atul Shah Vs Kancherla Anjaneyulu — Cheating and Forgery | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION No.7875 of 2009

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The petitioners 1 to 4/A4 and A6 to A8 are accused of offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 IPC in Cr.No.206 of 2008 of Pattabhipuram Police Station, Guntur. On report given by the first respondent, the police registered the case against eight persons. The petitioners are seeking under Section 482 Cr.P.C quashing of FIR against them on the ground that there is no basis for registration of the case against them and that registration of the case against them is nothing but abuse of process of law.

¶5

The complainant is a manufacturer of yarn in their spinning mill and sells the same to others. It is the specific case of the complainant that in May 2008, A1 by name A.V.Rama Subrahmannia Raju along with A2-V.Pathedar and A3-R.Meena Alamelur together with local broker Vamana Venkateswarlu came to the complainant and introduced A2 and A3 as Managing Partners of Sri Vari Textiles and that they purchased yarn from the complainant worth Rs.14,43,065/through invoice No.44, dated 3-6-2008 and that A1 issued a post-dated cheque representing the firm Sri Vari Textiles for the said amount in favour of the complainant’s company towards value of the yarn purchased and that when the said cheque was presented after the date, it was bounced on the ground of insufficient funds. At this stage, there is no dispute that the complainant’s company filed another case against Sri Vari Textiles and its partners alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, before the Magistrate.

¶6

It is further alleged by the complainant that A2 informed the complainant through letter dated 25-09-2008 that after taking delivery of the goods, they sold the same to Shagun Fibres, Mumbai and Sri Sarvodaya Enterprises, Itehelkarengi, through commission agent Atul Shah (A4), proprietor of Maha Lakshmi Yarn, Coimbatore. Therefore, it is alleged that A1 to A3 colluded with broker A4 and proprietor of Sri Sarvodaya Enterprises and partners of Shagun Fibres and in pursuance of their collusion, proceeds of the yarn were paid by Jugal Kishore Dyama (A6) of Sri Sarvodaya Enterprises by way of cheque drawn in favour of A4, instead of issuing the same in the name of Sri Vari Textiles and that Atul Shah (A4) encashed the cheque and after obtaining some amount along with another, paid balance to A1 and A3 and that similarly partners of Shagun Fibres namely A7 and A8 arranged payment of the proceeds of goods in cash to one P.Thangavelu (A5), who in turn, after retaining some amount, paid balance to A1 and A3.

¶7

Ultimately, it is the complaint of the first respondent/complainant that he did not get value of stock of Rs.14,43,065/- covered by invoice No.47 dated 8-6-2008 and value of stock of Rs.11,74,171 covered by invoice No.53 dated

¶8

12-6-2008. Taking the allegations in the complaint on their face value, it has to be seen whether there is any complicity for the petitioners 1 to 4/A4 and 6 to 8 in these transactions with the complainant. Admittedly, there is no privity of contract between the petitioners and the first respondent insofar as the above two transactions are concerned. It is not the petitioners who purchased yarn from the complainant under invoice

¶9

Nos.47 and 54. Even as per allegations in the complaint, the said purchases were made by A1 to A3 through one local broker. As per the allegations in the complaint, Sri Vari Textiles after obtaining delivery of the yarn from the complainant, sold the same to Sri Sarvodaya Enterprises and Shagun Fibres through A4 and A5 as brokers. The petitioners/A4 and A6 to A8 come into picture only in the transaction with Sri Vari Textiles and they have no connection with the transaction between the complainant and Sri Vari Textiles represented by A1 to A3. Even as per allegations in the complaint, Sri Sarvodaya Enterprises as well as Shagun Fibres, which concerns are represented by A6 to A8 made payment of value of the goods to the brokers A4 and A5 and the brokers A4 and A5 after deducting part of the payments, made over the amounts to A1 and A3. Thus, even if the allegations in the complaint are taken for granted, there is no element of cheating much less criminal misappropriation committed by A4 and A6 to A8. After receiving the yarn from Sri Vari Textiles, A6 to A8 made prompt payments of its value. Having regard to the above narration of events, it cannot be said that A4 and A6 to A8 cheated the complainant and misappropriated or committed criminal misappropriation of any amounts or goods belonging to the complainant. In fact, there was no representation made by any of A4 and A6 to A8 to the complainant nor any entrustment of goods by the complainant to A4 and A6 to A8. The report given by the first respondent/complainant through the police do not disclose any offence against any of the petitioners who are A4 and A6 to A8.

¶10

It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that if this sort

¶11

of complaints are entertained by the police and if the facts are further extended, then all the persons, who purchased cloth made of yarn sold by the complainant would become liable. This Court has no hesitation to come to the conclusion that it is this sort of abuse of process of law, that has to be curtailed by exercising inherent powers of this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶12

In the result, the criminal petition is allowed quashing FIR in Cr.No.206 of 2008 of Pattabhipuram Police Station insofar as the petitioners 1 to 4 /A4 and A6 to A8 are concerned.

¶13

____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J

¶14

Rkk Dated: 4-2-2011

Atul , Atul Shah v. Kancherla Anjaneyulu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Atul , Atul Shah v. Kancherla Anjaneyulu

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

Mohd. Abdul Majeed, Vs The State of A.P.

Korrapati Krishna Prasad, Vs Pushpalatha Agarwal

Ganta Baburao, Vs The State of A.P.

P.Jogayyamma Vs v.Veera Venkata Satyanarayana and Others

Aluri Venkata Ratnam, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

S.Venkatesh Vs The State through SHO Ps Chandur