Single judge order quashing criminal proceedings for cheating alleged to have occurred 14 years prior due to lack of documentary evidence like agreements or receipts and excessive delay in filing the complaint.
Criminal Petition No.168 of 2010 allowed; proceedings in C.C No.45 of 2009 quashed.
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.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY
Criminal Petition No.168 of 2010
O R D E R :
1. This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash proceedings in C.C No.45 of 2009 on the file of VI Additinoal Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal registered for offence punishable under Section 420 IPC.
2. The petitioner is the accused and the second respondent is the defacto complainant, whereas the first respondent is the complainant in the case. For the sake of convenience, I refer the parties as arrayed in the calendar case.
3. The brief facts of the case according to the prosecution are as follows. The defacto complainant is a business man by profession. He got acquaintance with the accused. In the year 1994, the accused was running real estate business. In the same year, the accused approached the defacto complainant and requested the latter to join as a member of his real estate business and assured the defacto complainant of allotment of plot located in Survey Nos.469, 471, 472, 557/1, 557/2 of Dharmaram village and also in Sy.No. 463/3 of Sthambampuram village. Believing the words of the accused, the defacto complainant joined as a member of the said real estate business with a fond hope of allotment of plot in his name in the said survey numbers. Then, the defacto complainant paid Rs.5,000/- and he was allotted pass book M.No.1721. Subsequently, the defacto complainant paid Rs.400/- per month. Further the defacto complainant in fact opened up 17 transactions in the name of his sons, daughters and wife in that business. In fact the accused received Rs.1,63,800/from the defacto complainant consequently. One Gudimalla Ravi, one Samala Ramesh and one Veludandi Ramesh witnessed the transactions. Further, it is alleged that some months later, no agent
approached the defacto complainant to collect the corresponding monthly installment amounts. Thereafter, the defacto complainant along with others went to the office of the accused to ascertain true facts and found that the accused had already left his business. Further, no response or communication was made by the accused with him in that context. The accused was also not found at his residence at Karimnagar. Thereby, having no other go, the defacto complainant approached the District Legal Services Authority, Warangal and filed complaint which was numbered as 516 of 2007. Consequently, notices were issued to the accused by the District Legal Services Authority. All the accused having received the notices, did not respond. Thereafter, the complainant approached the trial Court and filed his complaint. The complaint was forwarded to the SHO of Hanamkonda under Section 156(3) for investigation and report. Further, the SHO, Hanamkonda conducted necessary investigation of the case and filed charge sheet.
4. Learned counsel for the accused would contend that the corresponding complaint was filed before the court after a lapse of 14 years. There is no evidence of the accused executing any agreement in respect of the said transaction. There is also no evidence with regards to the issuance of any receipts to the defacto complainant with reference to the payment of installment. It is unbelievable that no agreement was obtained and no receipts were obtained in respect of the transaction unless his entire claim is false. If there is any oral agreement of sale, the defacto complainant can approach civil court for the specific performance of it. He also contends that when there is no basis of entering into any agreement for the property and there is also no basis of payment of any installments to the accused, the question of arising of criminal liability against the accused would not arise at all. According to him, there should be sufficient material for the prosecution of the accused for the alleged offence. He also claims that mere oral
statements given by the defacto complainant and his witnesses, is not suffice here.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the petition. 6. In order to prosecute the accused for the alleged offences, there should be clear material. In fact, for registering the case against the accused also, there should be clear material. Mere oral statements of the defacto complainant and his witnesses with regards to entering into such agreement and payment of the corresponding installments are not suffice here. The prosecution of the accused without any basis is nothing but abusing the process of law. The fact that the defacto complainant filed private complaint before the concerned court after a period of 14 years of the occurrence of the alleged incident is to be very much reckoned with. There is no basis to say as to why he had to wait for such long time in order to take necessary measures in this regard. Thereby sufficient material is not there to prosecute the accused for the alleged offence. Hence, the calendar case is not sustainable and the same is liable to be quashed.
7. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed.
____________________________ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Date:02-08-2012 Kvs/da
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY
CRL.P. No.168 OF 2010
August 2, 2012.
kvs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY
Criminal Petition No.168 of 2010
Date: 02.08.2012
P.Manohar Rao.
…Petitioner
and
The State of A.P, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P, Hyderabad and another. …Respondents
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Criminal Petitioner is entitled to quash criminal proceedings for alleged cheque-related offences due to lack of documentary evidence and excessive delay.
Whether prosecution is sustainable based solely on oral statements of the complainant after a lapse of 14 years.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
P.Manohar Rao
The State of A.P
High Court of A.P
defacto complainant
G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
