Dismissed

Shamsher Singh, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC11 Apr 2012CRLP/565/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash criminal proceedings for breach of trust regarding undelivered goods. It held that non-delivery despite repeated demands constitutes a cognizable offence, and without abuse of process, inherent powers could not be invoked to quash the case.

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings was dismissed.

Shamsher Singh, Vs The State of Andhra… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION No.565 of 2012

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the proceedings in Cr.No.86 of 2011 of Veerullapadu Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 407, 418, 427 and 420 IPC.

¶5

2. Heard.

¶6

3. The brief facts are as follows:-

¶7

On 11-04-2011, the complainant’s factory dispatched 10 sets of 48 V 400AH, VRLA batteries from their factory to Indus Towers Limited, Jaipur (for short “the consignee”) through accused Road Carriers vide L.R.No.A479144. The accused carriers reached Jaipur along with the goods on 18-04-2011. The consignee refused to take delivery of the material as the packing of the material has got totally damaged in transit purely because of the accused carrier transport and the same were brought back to the godown of the complainant. On 20-05-2011, the service Engineer got the goods repacked for delivery to the consignee and the same were handed over to the accused to deliver the same to the consignee. However, the accused did not deliver the goods to the consignee in spite of repeated requests made by the complainant. Due to the act of the accused, both the complainant and the consignee sustained heavy loss. Therefore, he gave a complaint to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Veerlapadu on 22-06-2011. As the police did not take any action, the

¶8

complainant filed private complaint before the Magistrate against the accused under Sections 406, 407, 418 and 420 IPC. The complaint was referred to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation and report. The police registered the complaint as Cr.No.82 of 2011.

¶9

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the consignee refused to take delivery of the goods on the ground that the materials were damaged in packing, and petitioner got issued a notice to the 2^nd respondent on 09-08-2011 and he failed to pay arrears of freight charges to a tune of Rs.25,79,739/-, that on demand, the 2^nd respondent paid Rs.14,65,015/- and issued cheque for the remaining amount, that when the cheque was presented for encashment it was dishonoured, that the dispute between the petitioner and the complainant is civil in nature and therefore, he seeks to quash the proceedings against the accused.

¶10

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent contended that in spite of repeated demands, the accused has not entrusted the goods to the consignee, that there is criminal breach of trust on the part of the accused, that the 2^nd respondent and the consignee suffered huge loss and, therefore, it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings.

¶11

Inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised to prevent abuse of process of Court, or to secure the ends of justice, or to carry out the orders passed under the Code. The allegation against the petitioner is that he has not delivered the goods to the consignee, which were entrusted to the petitioner in spite of

¶12

repeated demands, which amounts to criminal breach of trust on the part of the petitioner. When the allegations in the complaint made out a cognizable offence, it is the statutory duty of the police to conduct investigation and, therefore, at the threshold of the investigation, the powers of the police cannot be interdicted. The petitioner failed to satisfy that his case falls under any of the three categories to invoke the inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. There are no grounds to quash the proceedings and hence, the criminal petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶13

Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed.

¶14

_______________________ JUSTICE K.C. BHANU

¶15

09^th April, 2012 Prv

Shamsher Singh, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shamsher Singh, 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

P.Giri Babu , Giridhar Rao, Vs The State of Andhra pradesh

Manda Sri Venkataramana Murthy, (A1) Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kodipalli Rajanna, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt.K.Swarupa Rani, Vs B.Srinivas Goud

P.Gowri Vs O. Madhusudhan

K.Eswaraiah Vs The State of A.P.