Allowed

E.Ramesh v. the State of a.P., Rep. by P.P.

Telangana HC4 Mar 2021CRLP/2148/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court in criminal sentence under Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashed criminal proceedings against a rice mill owner accused of furnishing false documents regarding paddy receipts. The court held that the dispute involved civil/administrative determination of quality and lack of proof of dishonest intent meant no offense under IPC Section 420 or Essential Commodities Act had been made out.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings against the petitioner in Crime No. 29 of 2013 at Godavarikhani II-Town Police Station were quashed.

E.Ramesh Vs the State of a.P., Rep. by P.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANG ANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI

¶5

Between:

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITIoN No: 2148 oF 2013

¶7

E. Ra mesh, S/o.Jagannad ha m, Occ: Business, Rl/o.Goutham Nagar, Ramagundam, Karimnagar.

¶8

...PETITIONERYACCUSED

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of A.P., Rep. by public prosecutor, High Court of A.p., Hyderabad

¶11

...RESPONDENT

¶12

Petition under section 4g2 of cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the lVlemorandum of Grounds of criminar petition, the High court may be preased to call for the records relatrng to cr.No.29 of 20.13 on the file of the Godavari Khani ll_ Town Police Station, Karimnagar, and quash the same,

¶13

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2013(CRLPMP. NO: 1 864 0F 2013)

¶14

Petition under Section 482 of cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the lMemorandum of Grounds of criminar petition, the High court may be preased to stay of all further proceedings including arrest in cr.No.29 of 2013 on the file of the Godavari Khani ll-Town Police Station, Karimnagar.

¶15

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri A.pRABHAKAR RAo, Advocate for the Petitioner and of the Additional public prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent.

¶16

The Court made the followin g: ORDER

¶17

HONOURABLE JUSTICE C. SI(I DEVI

¶18

CRIMINAI. PETITION No.2148 of 2013

¶19

ORDER:

¶20

The petitioner, who is accused in Crime No.29 of²⁰¹³ of Godavarikhani II-Town Police Station,^{I(arimnagarDistrict,filed} this Criminal Petition under Section 482 CI.P.C. to^{quash the} proceedings in the above crime, which was^registered for^the offences punishable under Section,l20 ol^l.P.C. and^{Section9 of the} Essential Commodities Act, 1955

¶21

The brief facts of the case are that cluring^{KMS 2011-2012} (Kharif Marketing Season), the paclc'lv ,'';l s purchased by the Government Agencies i.e., IKI']/ PACSs^f rom the farmers^at Minimum Support Price and the paddy so purchased was^handed over to the rice mills in the District anrl^M/ s^{PadmavathiInds.,} Julapalli^{Viilage, Kamanpur Mandalis also one of the rice mills,} which has received paddy from the IKP/PACS.^{The miller hasto} deiiver resultant rice i.e., 68% Ior boiled^{rice and@ 67% for raw rice} to the F.C.L The petitioner,^{who is the owner of M/s Padmavathi} Inds., furnished a statement that^{had reccivedpaddy for a quantity} of 18300.60 quintals in l(harif ancl^{1i1687.30iprintalsin Rabi 2011-} 2012 seasons and the totat paddy^{received was 36988.40 quintals and} 68% on the pacldy receivecl^{by the millel was worked out at 25152.11} quintals. The milier in his report^{furnisl'red that he has delivered} 11070.00 quintals towarcls^{resrtlttrntrice to the FCI underCMR,}

¶22

¶23

whereas in the^{declaration givento the DistrictManager'APSCSC} Ltd., Karimnagar,^the Petitioner^{reported that they had received} paddy of 20183.25^{quintalsin Kharif2011'-2012and 2139399quintals} in Rabi 2071-2012,^{and the total paddy receivedwas 41577'24} quintals under^{CMR ancl a quanti ty of 70722'52 quintals of rice} against the total^{rice derived, under CMR is to be deliveredto the} F.C.I. Therefore,^{the petitioner,had given false information} regarding the^{paddy receipts and he has not shownthe records for} the paddy worth^{Rs.50,93,612/-. Hence, the petitioner is liable for} punishment. Basing^{on the aboveallegations, the Deputy Tahsildar} (Civil Supplies),^{Manthani, lodged a report beforethe Station House} Officer, Godavarikhini^{II-Town PoliceStationon28'02'2013' who in} turn registered a^{case in CrimeNo 29 of 2013 againstthe} petitioner/accused^{for the offence punishable underSection 420 of} I.P.C. and Section^{9 of the Essential CommoditiesAct''}

¶24

Heard learnecl^{Counselappearing for the petitioner'leamed} Assistant Public^{Prosecutor ap-rpearingfor the respondent/State and} perused the record.

¶25

Leamed Counsel^{for the petitionerwould submitthat the} petitioner has not^{committeci any offencemuchless the offences} with which he^{was charged.The petitionerhimself has furnished} the statement of^{accountsto the Civil Supplies Corporation about} the receipt of^{the paddy by him and that the petitioneris yet to} deliverthericetotheCorporationtowardscustommillingricefrom

¶26

¶27

out of the paddy^{receivedby him and that the accounts relating to} receipts of^{paddy and delivery of rice are yet to be finalized' It is} further submitted^{that the} Petitioner^{did not furnish false} information to^{the respondent as to the receiptof paddy'The Civil} Supplies Department^{a{ter receipt of entire quantityof rice will} finalize the accounts^{and pay the bills towardsworking charges to} the petitioner at the^{closure of the businessand that the respondent} officials high handedly^{filed a rePortagainstthe petitioner'} Assuming without^{admission, givine false informationdoes not} amount to an offence^{under Section 420 ol'I.P.C.On the other hand,} the Civil Supplies^{Departmenthad purcl.rasedthe paddy fromthe} farmers through un-experienced^{agencies, whichcontainsmoisture} and foreign material^{and clurnped the pac'ldy at the rice mill of the} petitioner and that the^{paddybecamediscoloured due to its} moisture content.^{When the said paddy was rnilled and resultant} rice was supplied to^{the Food Corporationof India towardscustom} milling rice, the^{authorities did not receivethe rice as it contains} some grains of^{discoloured rice. Thercis no truth in the report given} by the Deputy Tahsildar,^{CivilSuppties,Manthini, Karimnagar} Dishict. It is also^{submitted that the allegations in the First} Information Report even^{if they were takcn on theirface valueand} accepted in its entirety,^{no case is madeout against the petitionerfor} the offence under Section^{420 of I.P.C. and Section 9 of the Essential} Commodities Act,^{1955 ancl prayecl to quash the proceedings'}

¶28

Learned^{AssistantI'ub1ic Prosecutor apPearing for the} respondent/State^{opposedthe Criminal Petition stating that a} .I prima facie^{case againstthe} reading of^{the rePort make out} petitioner/^{accusedfor the offence alleged against him'}

¶29

To establish^{an offence under Section 420 IPC' it must be} shown^{that there was a frauclulentancl dishonest intentionat the} time of^{commissionof o{fencear-rd that the person practicing the} deceit had^{obtainedthe propertyby fraudulent inducement and} willful misrePresenta^tior-r'

¶30

In the^{instant case' as seen from the materialon record' the} two statements,^{whichare furnishedby the petitioner'have not been} filed along^{with the repoltFurther' failure to deliveryof Rice to} F.C.I. is^{not an offence under Section 420 of I'P'C' and further the} dispute^{relating to supply of inferiorquality of paddy is under} consideration^{by the authoritiesof Civil SuppliesDepartment'} Hence, the^{allegation,as ifthe Petitionerhad furnishedfalse} information^{with regarcl to supplyof paddyto the F'C'I' as raised in} the report^{is lncorrect' Moreover' it is seen from the above' the} ingredients^{of the offenceas alleged by the prosecutionhas not been} made out^{against the} Petitioner'^{For the PurPose of constitutingan} offence of^{cheatir-rg,t1-re complainantis required to show that the} accused^{had fraudulent or dishonestintentionat the time of making} promise^{or rePresentationln the absenceof such culpableintention'} no offence^{underSection 420 of the IndianPenal Code has been}

¶31

¶32

made^{out against the petitioner' as such if the criminal proceedings} are allowed^{to go on against the petitionel it will amount to abuseof} process^{of law' In these circumstances' continuationof criminal} proceedings^{against the petitioner would be nothing but an abuseof} process^{of law and in order to securethe ends of iustice'the criminal} proceedings^{are liable to be quashecl'}

¶33

Accordingly^{the Criminal Petition is allowed and the} proceedings^{against the petitioner/accusedin Crime No'29of 2013} of Godavarikhani^{II-Town Police Station' Karimnagar'are hereby} quashed.

¶34

As a sequel^{thereto,MiscellaneousPetitions' if any' pending}

¶35

in this^{Criminal Petition'shail stand closed'}

¶36

RAO sd/-NcHAU?X$it-[H*RAR //TRUE^COPY// SECTION^OFFICER

¶37

¶38

f*o^{CCs to Public Pros(} lH:*riisi[;ilipill1.t"{'nffifi;fl1tiffi Hffi "1.;;;5:Ti]i??:,,0

¶39

a. So"uJJc^{to SriA Prabhakar Rao' Advocate(oPUc)}

¶40

Two^{CD CoPies} kj.

&-a

HIGH COURT

DATED:04/03/2021

1 !{e S TAIg
(
.t
o() 1 e i'.l''B 2021 C
*

ORDER

CRLP.No.2148 of 2013

CRL.P. IS ALLOWED.

s#-
1 ,,"
'$&
0

E.Ramesh v. the State of a.P., Rep. by P.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

E.Ramesh v. the State of a.P., Rep. by P.P.

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

Manchala Sampath Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

The State of a.P., Vs Lingala Mallesh Yadav

Mettupally Santhosh Reddy , Mastan Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Polam Nagaraju , Nagaraju Vs State of Telangana

Chinthapalli Kiran Vs State of Telangana

Jungula Narsa Goud, And Another Vs The State of Telangana