Dismissed

Dr.Narsingdas Tapadia v. Goverdhandas Partani and 7 Others

Telangana HC22 Nov 2021CRLRC/1508/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Revision under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC filed against acquittal for offences under Sections 120B, 418 and 420 IPC. The High Court held there was no deceptive intention and acquitted enclosed. Dismissed the Criminal Revision Case.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Revision Case is dismissed and the impugned judgment of the lower court is affirmed.

Dr.Narsingdas Tapadia Vs Goverdhandas Partani and 7… — Cheating and Forgery | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA^{AT HYDERABAD}

¶2

IVONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF NOVEN/BER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON,BLE DT. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1508 OF 2007

¶6

Criminal Revision Case Under Section 397 & 401 of Criminal Revision Case against the Order dated 29.6.2007 passed in CC.No. 1623 of 2006 on the file of the Courl of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Dr.Narsingdas Tapadia, S/o. Ghisalal Tapadia, Doctor, R/o. H.No. 19-3-1015, Shamsheer Gunj, Hyderabad

¶9

.,.PETITIONER/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT

¶10

AND

¶11

"l . Goverdhandas Partani , S/o. Late Bhagwandas Partani, aged 50 years, Business,

¶12

Purshothamdas Partani, S/o. Late Bhagwandas Partani, aged 47 years, Business,

¶13

Mukanddas Partani, S/o. Late Bhagwandas Partani, aged 44 years, Business,

¶14

Narayandas Partani, S/o. Late Bhagwandas Partani, aged 42 years, Business,

¶15

Vijaya Kumar Partani, S/o. Late Bhagwandas Partani, aged 30 years, Business, (Respondent Nos. I to 5 are Rl/o. 1-4-9701i, Bakaram, Musheerabad, Hyderabad)

¶16

9m!.Tulasi Devi, W/o. Laxminivas Asawa, aged 40 years, Housewife, R/o. H.No 21-3-77, Chowk, Kesaragutta, Hyderabad.^-

¶17

Vikab Choradia, aged 40 years, Business, R/o. Gyan & Co., Silddamber Bazar, Hyderabad.

¶18

state gf A.P,.through P.s. chatrinaka, Hyderabad, rep. by the pubric prosecutor, High Cou( of A.P.. Hyderabad

¶19

...RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED

¶20

counsel for the Petitioner: sRl K. s. RAHUL (Not present) sri c.sharan Reddy , Learned Counsel as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court

¶21

counsel for the Respondent No.8: ADDTfloNAL puBLrc pRosEcuroR (TG)

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 7: NONE APPEARED

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

THE HON BLE^{DT. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER} CRI IN! L REVISIoNc^SEN.150 of 20 o1'

¶25

9BDEB:

¶26

This Criminal^{Revislon Case, underSections397 and 401 of} CodeofCriminalPocedure,fgT3(forshort"Cr'P'C")'isfiledby the^{petitione r/de l lcto complainant, aggrievedby the acquittal} recorded against^{th: respondentNos l lo7/A'L to A'5' A'7 and A'B} for the offences^{r-rlder Sections1208, 418 and 420 IPC vide} judgment dated 29 06.2OO7^{passedin C'C'No'1623of 2006 5v the} learned Chief^{Metrololitan Magistrate, Hyderabad'}

¶27

No representi^{tion for the petitioner /de facto complainant'On} earlier occasion^{als ), there was no representationon his behalf'} SincetherevisionSoftheyearZQ}T,thisCourtispleasedto appoint Sri^{C.Shara n Reddy,learned counsel as AmicusCuriaelo} assist the^Court.

¶28

Heard the^{s lbmissions of Sri C'sharan Reddy'learned} Amicus Curiae,^{le arned Additional Public Prosecutor for the} respondent^{No.B/St rte and perusedthe record'}

¶29

Sri C.Sharan^{Reddy,learned Amicus Curiae submtted that} PW.1 and^PW.2 laid^{some amount to the accusedtowards} investment^{in their business'The accused'who promised to repay} the same^{with high rate of interest' failed to do so and that lead to} the filing^{of the conplaintThe Court belowhaving analysed the} whole issue,^{was cf the opinion that there was no deceptive} intention^{on the pe't of the accused from the beginningand that} there^{is no dishone it inducement makingPW'1 and PW'2 to invest}

¶30

)

¶31

money into their business with a promise to pay high rate oF interest on the money received as investment and that the oral and documentary evidence placed on record do not establish the ingredients under Sections 120B, 418 and 420 IpC.

¶32

The submissions made by the learned Amicus Curiae are borne by the record. There was no deceptive intention on the part of the accused from the inception. As seen from the material placed on record, the Court below having analysed the entire oral and documentary evidence on record, held that the prosecution failed to establish that the accused induced the petitioner/ complainant (PW.1) or his wife-pw.2 with a dishonest intention to make them deposit the amounts towards investment in their business in various firms and promised to repay the same with high rate of interest and ultimately deceived them without making repayment. The said conclusions reached by the Court below are neither perverse, irrational nor there is any patent illegality, to vary the impugned judgment dated 29.06.2007. The court berow is justified in acquitting the respondent Nos.1 to 7/A.L to A.5, A.7 and A.B for the offences under Sections 1208, 418 and 420 IpC. This criminar Revision case is devoid of merit and is riable to be d ism issed .

¶33

Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.

¶34

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal

¶35

Revision Case shall stand closed.

¶36

SD/. CH,VENKATESWARULU DEPUTY REGIS'RAR //TRUE COPY// 'r-/ SECTION OFFICER

¶37

To, 1 The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate^{at Hyderabad.(with records' if any)} 2 T;; aca to Rooiiionat^{PubliiProsecutor, High Courtfor the State of Telangana,at} Hvderabad [OUTI J Oire CC to Sri K.'S.^{Rahul, Advocate} [OPUC] 4 One CC to Sri C. Sharan^{Reddy, Advocate} [OPUC] 5 Two CD Copies b One Spare Copy t..\ .},* CDL GJ

HIGH COURT

DATED:2211112(²¹

ORDER

CRLRC.No.1508^{of 2007}

¶42

zc;;;?,N
(
(:
(:,
: olJAN2u2
\ \ i..; ph iC

¶43

DISMISSING^{TH : CRL.R.C.}

¶44

2,\ G

Dr.Narsingdas Tapadia v. Goverdhandas Partani and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.Narsingdas Tapadia v. Goverdhandas Partani and 7 Others

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

Kolanti Ramesh Vs the State of A.P.

G.S.Mallikarjun Vs Smt Koka Radha Devi

Y. Suryanarayana Raju Vs Vadali Srinivasa Raju and 3 Others, Rep. by P.P.

Sri Md. Shamsad Ali, Vs the Insp of Police, Rep by Its Spl Pp Hyd., for Acb.

Kamini Venkateswara Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Public Prosecutor

M/S. Apl Cheminature Ltd., Vs State of a.P., Rep by Pp., and Another