Dismissed

G.v.Viswanathan v. The State of Ap.

Telangana HC6 Aug 2012CRLP/5867/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Petition No.5867 of 2012, the court dismissed a petition seeking quashing of FIR alleging cheating under Sections 420 and 506 IPC. The court held that despite allegations of civil dispute and delay, specific facts indicated dishonest intention, making criminal investigation appropriate beyond civil adjudication.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition No.5867 of 2012 dismissed; no interference with investigation.

G.v.Viswanathan Vs The State of Ap. — Cheating and Forgery | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

¶2

Criminal Petition No.5867 of 2012

¶3

O R D E R:

¶4

The petitioner is accused of offences punishable under Sections 420 and 506 IPC. It is alleged that the complainant/2^nd respondent paid a total sum of Rs.16,10,000/- from time to time between 02.12.2007 to 01.11.2008 to the accused on condition of sending fish feed material worth Rs.17,00,000/- within six months from the date of receipt of the amount. It is further alleged that the accused did not intend to send the fish feed material within the stipulated time, and intentionally deceived the complainant and cheated.

¶5

It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that there is delay of 4 years in lodging the private complaint and that it is not probable that the complainant paid other instalments when supply of material as against payment of money under 1^st instalment was defaulted and that the case is one which is of civil nature and that the complainant suppressed material facts about the petitioner’s supply of material to the complainant. Most of the said contentions are based on

¶6

disputed questions of fact and assessment of probabilities and improbabilities of the case and enquiry into those aspects is alien to Section 482 Cr.P.C. Delay of about 3 ½ years cannot be fatal to the case because in business circles people will wait for matters being thrashed out at commercial circles and they approach the Court only on failure to secure result in commercial circles. It is also a question of fact as to the circumstances which made the complainant to wait for 3 ½ years. Specific allegations in the complaint that the petitioner never intended to send fish feed material and received huge sum of Rs.16,10,000/- and odd from the complainant, indicate that there was a dishonest intention on the part of the petitioner to dishonour the contract. Therefore, it cannot be said that the said allegation is of civil nature. There are no grounds to entertain this criminal petition and interfere with investigation of the crime at its threshold.

¶7

Hence, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

¶8

____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J

¶9

Dt. 6^th August, 2012 PNV

G.v.Viswanathan v. The State of Ap.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.v.Viswanathan v. The State of Ap.

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

Narra Venkatramaiah, Vs Boina Yellaiah, (A1)

G.Rama Krishna Vs G.Sujatha

Sarvey Satyanarayana Vs State of A.P.

Sri Gudishe Jithendar Yadav Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K.v.P.J.Ram Prasad, Vs Ramu Naik

Sri Vemula Prem Kumar Reddy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh