Dismissed

Mohd. Rafiq Ahmed v. State of Ap., Rep.byits

Telangana HC16 Feb 2012CRLP/13662/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sought quashing of proceedings alleging cheating and misappropriation regarding removal of hypothecated machinery. The court rejected the abuse of process argument, found criminal liability was not barred by Section 428 Cr.P.C., and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petition to quash proceedings in Crime No.227 of 2011 dismissed.

Mohd. Rafiq Ahmed Vs State of Ap… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

¶2

Criminal Petition No.13662 OF 2011

¶3

16^th February, 2012

¶4

Between :-

¶5

Mohd.Rafiq Ahmed .. Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and another .. Respondents

¶6

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

¶7

Criminal Petition No.13662 OF 2011

¶8

Order:-

¶9

This Criminal Petition has been taken out under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the accused in Crime No.227 of 2011 of Jeedimetla P.S., to quash the proceeding therein.

¶10

The Chief Manager, Syndicate Bank, presented a report before the Station House Officer, Jeedimetla P.S., allegingi, inter alia, that M/s.Mohammed Plastic Pvt.Ltd., Mr.Mohd.Rafiq Ahmed, Managing Director, Mrs.Nazima Parveen, Director, M/s.M.R.Industries represented by Mr.Rafiq Ahmed and other partners, Mr.Mohd.Rahemuddin, Mrs.Rabia Bee @ Rabia Begum and Mrs.Nazima Parveen executed loan documents hypothecating the machinery as security for the loan availed by M/s.Mohammed Plastics Private Limited. Subsequently, the Company got the hypothecated oproperty removed from the Company premises contrary to the terms

¶11

of sanction and it amounts to cheating and misappropriation. Basing on the said report, a case in Crime No.227 of 2011 came to be registered by the Station House Officer, Jeedimetla P.S. Hence, this petition by Mohd.Rafiq Ahmed to quash the proceeding therein.

¶12

Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the material placed on record.

¶13

Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that respondent No.2 – Bank initiated proceedings for realization of the amounts by taking recourse to the provisions of the Securitisation Act and thereupon the petitioner approached this Court and obtained stay of the proceedings and therefore the continuance of proceedings in Crime No.227 of 2011 amounts to abuse of process of law.

¶14

I have gone through the report presented by the Chief Manager of Syndicate Bank. It is stated in the report that the petitioner and others having raised loan on the basis of hypothecation of machinery, removed the machinery clandestinely and thereby deprive the Bank to lay its stand on the hypothecated property. Such is the accusation levelled against the petitioner, further proceedings in Crime No.227 of 2011 of Jeedimetla P.S., cannot be interdicted in exercise of power under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.

¶15

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

¶16

B.Seshasayana Reddy, J

¶17

16^th February, 2012

¶18

smr

Mohd. Rafiq Ahmed v. State of Ap., Rep.byits

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Rafiq Ahmed v. State of Ap., Rep.byits

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

Vipul Chandok Vs Sheetal Chandok

J.Kanaka Durga Prasad Vs Smt. Nuthalapati Mary Puspalatha

Munnamgi Rajeshwar, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. Kotha Yadamma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Domala Padma Rao Vs The State of Ap., Rep byits

Ch.Koteshwar Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh