Allowed

S.Rajiv Kumar Reddy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC5 Nov 2011CRLP/9301/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh allowed joint criminal petitions to quash an FIR alleging cheating, criminal conspiracy, and forgery against real estate agents. The Court held that disputes over account rendering of funds used for land purchases are civil in nature, and the allegations lacked specific details to sustain criminal prosecution.

What did the court decide?

Criminal petitions allowed; F.I.R. in Crime No.60/2010 quashed insofar as concerns A-4, A-5, and A-6.

S.Rajiv Kumar Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

¶3

CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.9300, 9301 & 9315 of 2010

¶4

DATE: 05.11.2011

¶5

CRL.P.No.9300 of 2010 Between: M.Ramalingeshwar Reddy @ M.Rama Rangeshwar Reddy …… Petitioner And The State of A.P. through P.S CCS DO, Hyderabad, Public Prosecutor and another …..Respondents CRL.P.No.9301 of 2010 Between: S.Rajiv Kumar Reddy …… Petitioner And The State of A.P. through P.S CCS DO, Hyderabad, Public Prosecutor and another …..Respondents CRL.P.No.9315 of 2010 Between: C.V.Manohar Reddy …… Petitioner And The State of A.P. through P.S CCS DO, Hyderabad, Public Prosecutor and another …..Respondents

¶6

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.9300, 9301 & 9315 of 2010 COMMON ORDER :

¶8

The petitioners in these criminal petitions are A-4 to A-6 respectively in Crime No.60 of 2010 of Central Crime Station, Hyderabad. Private complaint filed by the 2^nd respondent/complainant was referred by the XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The 2^nd respondent/complainant is doing real estate business and completed some ventures and was undertaking certain other ventures. The private complaint is filed against 8 persons. In so far as A-1 to A-3 (who are not petitioners herein) are concerned, they are stated to be inducted as employees of the 2^nd respondent company by way of giving appointments to them. A-4 and A-5 are independent real estate agents. They are stated to have entered into memorandum of understanding dated 02.05.2006 with the complainant company. Apart from general allegations of greediness developed by A-4 and a-5, specific allegations were made in the complaint against them. It is alleged that there was proposal for purchase of 140 to 150 acres of prime land at Kalvakol village of Maheswaram Mandal of Rangareddy District and that A-4 withdrew Rs.18.00 crores from the complainant company to purchase the land which amount is included in the total amount of Rs.25.00 crores withdrawn by him towards cost of land and development till

¶9

March, 2007. It is further alleged that on 26.12.2008 A-4 and A-5 informed the complainant company that they utilised Rs.30.92 crores, and that when asked about details of utilisation of amount, they promised to supply complete details within 30 days from that date and that both of them vanished and were not answering telephone calls also. It is further alleged that all the accused hatched criminal conspiracy with common intention to cheat by fabrication, concoction, created bogus papers of land and withdrew huge amounts causing serious financial damage to the complainant company. It is alleged that the complainant has got strong reasons to believe that the amounts amassed through forgery, concoction and fraud from the complainant must have gone to the account of close relations and friends of A-4 and A-5 like A-6 to A-8 at Anantapur, Tirupathy and Hyderabad. Apart from the above allegations, there is another specific allegation to the effect that A-4 transferred Rs.49.00 lakhs on various dates between 18.10.2006 to 13.11.2008.

¶10

2) In so far as the allegation regarding failure of A-4 and A-5 to give accounts of utilisation of Rs.30.92 crores which includes purchase of lands in Kalvakol village by A-4 and A- 5, the said allegations cannot attract any penal provision against A-4 and A-5. Relationship between the complainant company on one hand and A-4 and A-5 on the other hand is

¶11

one of principal and agents. When principal entrusts certain money to the agents for purchase of lands and when the agents in fact purchased the lands and failed to give proper accounting of utilisation of amounts, it cannot amount to either criminal misappropriation of funds or criminal breach of trust on their part. It is a matter for accounting between parties, and if there is any dispute regarding accounting, it is for the aggrieved party to approach the civil Court and seek rendition of accounts from the other party.

¶12

3) In so far as allegations of forgery, concoction, creation of bogus papers etc., are concerned, except setting out the above legal terms, the complainant company did not give any details muchless single instance of forgery, concoction or creation of bogus papers on the part of A-4 or A-5. The said allegations are bald and vague.

¶13

4) In so far as allegation of A-4 transferring Rs.49.00 lakhs on various dates is concerned, it is contended by the 2^nd respondent’s counsel that bank accounts of A-4 filed along with the complaint before the Magistrate show that A-4 has credited certain cheques and other money transfers into his account from the complainant company. Unless the company or the authorised representative of the company gives any cheques or sends any money by transfer, A-4 cannot credit the same into his bank account. In any event, it is pointed out by this Court that it is a matter for accounting

¶14

between the principal and agents with regard to the moneys received by A-4 and A-5 from the complainant company and the said subject matter has to be thrashed out in a properly constituted civil suit for account.

¶15

5) In the light of the said allegations which prima facie raise accounting disputes between A-4, A-5 and the complainant-company and which are vague and bald allegations, the complainant cannot maintain a complaint/F.I.R against A-4 and A-5 for any of the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 409, 465, 468, 469, 471, 420/34 I.P.C.

¶16

6) There is neither contractual relationship nor any other relationship between the complainant-company and A- 6. The complainant believes that moneys obtained by A-4 and A-5 from the complainant-company must have gone to the accounts of A-6 etc., For the speculation of the complainant-company about parking of funds by A-4 and A- 5 in A-6’s account, no criminal case can be registered against A-6, since the alleged lands obtained by A-4 and A- 5 from the complainant company are nothing but legal amounts obtained during the course of their agency created under the memorandum of understanding dated 02.05.2006. Viewed from any angle, the complaint/F.I.R against A-4 to A-6 for the above said offences is nothing but abuse of process of criminal law and intended to settle civil

¶17

scores by misusing criminal procedure.

¶18

7) In the result, all the criminal petitions are allowed quashing F.I.R in Crime No.60/2010 of Central Crime Station, Hyderabad in so far as A-4, A-5 and A-6 are concerned.

¶19

_______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J

¶20

November 5, 2011 ksh

S.Rajiv Kumar Reddy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Rajiv Kumar Reddy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

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

D. Raviunder Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Chakali Yellaiah Vs The State of A.P.

B. Venkatramana, (a 1) Vs State of a.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor

M.Ramalingeshwar Reddy , M.Rama Rangeshwar Reddy Vs The State of A.P.

K. Pratap Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

B.Anjaneyulu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Public Prosecutor