Allowed

Mohana Rayalu v. the State of a.P., Rep., by Its Pp and Another

Telangana HC16 Jun 2022CRLP/15106/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court quashed proceedings initiated from a private complaint alleging cheating and criminal intimidation. The Court held that mere breach of contract without intent to cheat does not constitute an offence under IPC Sections 420 and 506.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings against the petitioner/accused in pursuance of FIR Cr. No. 555 of 2013 registered with Jubilee Hills Police Station, Hyderabad, were quashed.

Mohana Rayalu Vs the State of a.P., Rep., by Its Pp… — Cheating and Forgery | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY ,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 15106 OF 2013

¶6

Between:

¶7

Mohana Rayalu C.R. S/o. Narsimha, age 46 years, Occ: Business, R/o 37lA Journalist Colony Hyderabad.

¶8

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶9

AND

¶10

STATE OF A.P., through Public Prosecutor High Court of A.P.Hyderabad. (P.S.Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad)

¶11

Mrs. Annie, Wo P.Simon, R/o. Door No 101124-6, 7th cross, 16th main, BTM 2nd stage Bangalore.

¶12

...RESPONDENT

¶13

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the FIR/Crime No 555 oI 2013 of P.S. Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad.

¶14

CRLPMP. NO: 13543 OF 2013

¶15

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P .C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further Proceedings in Crime No.555t2013 oI PS., Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad.

¶16

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri H SRINIVASA RAO ,Advocate for the Petitioner and of the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and None Appeared for the Respondent No.2.

¶17

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

THE ITONOLTRABLE SRI JUSI-ICIi A.SANl'IIoSII R.I.]I)DY

¶19

CRL.P.No. l5 I 06 OI,' 20 l3

¶20

ORDER:

¶21

This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in pursuance of the F.l.R in Cr.No.555 of 2013 of Jubilee Hills Police Station, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420 & 506 rPC.

¶22

Heard both sides. Perused the record.

¶23

One Mrs.Annie filed a private complaint behrre the learned XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad against the petitioner herein alleging offences punishable under Sections 420 & 506 IPC and the same was referred to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C for investigation and report. The police, in tum, registered a case in Cr.No.555 of 2013 for the above said offences.

¶24

T'he allegations in the complaint goes to show that the petitioner is having a division office in the name and style of M/s Bit2b1'te Online -Digital Medi olutions I)vt., Ltd., at R.T.Nagar, Bangalore. The petitioner appointed the complainant

¶25

¶26

as distributor and entered into an asreemcnt with certain tenns and conditions, as per which the complainant had deposited an amount ofRs.2 lakhs on 10.04.2013 at SBI, Jayanagar Branch, Bangalore. Subsequently, the petitioner did not give commission as promised and closed the Bangalore Branch office and thereby cheated the complainant. When the complainant asked the petitioner to return the amount of Rs.2 lakhs, he refused to pay the same and threatened the complainant with dire consequences stating that if the complainant comes again, he will see her end and abused her in filthy language.

¶27

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is no violation of terms and conditions of agreement entered no into between the petitioner and complainant and there is criminal liability emanating from the breach of conditions of the agreement and that there are no material allegations to make out a cognizable offence.

¶28

On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the allegations in the cornplaint attract cognizable of'fences and the truth or otherwise of the same will comc out only

¶29

¶30

after full-fledged trial and the investigating olticer may be permitted to complete the investigation. She prays lor disrnissal of the criminal petition

¶31

In this case, it is to be seen whether the allegations in the complaint, if accepted on the face value, constitute the olTences under Sections 420 and 506 IPC.

¶32

Section 420 IPC which deals with cheating and dishonestly inducing ofproperty reads as under:

¶33

"Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be^punished with imprisonment of eilher description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine".

¶34

[t is not in dispute that no action can be initiated in criminal

¶35

court unless intention to cheat is found present. In the present case, the petitioner appointed the complainant as distributor and entered into an agreement with ceftain terms and conditions, as per which the complainant deposited an amount o1' Rs.2 lakl.rs on

¶36

¶37

10.04.2013. Since the petitioner l'ailed to give commission as promised, it is alleged the petitioner cheated the complainant. Tl'rere is no intention to the petitioner to cheat the complainant frorn the time of entering into agreement. Mere breach of a contract cannot give rise to a criminal prosecution and, moreover, when there is absence of mens rea to cheat the complainant, no

¶38

criminal offence can be made out against the petitioner.

¶39

The ingredients of offence of 'criminal intimidation' as defined in Section 503 IPC and punishable under Section 506 IPC are as under:

¶40

(a) Threatening a person with any injury; (i) to his person, reputation or^property; or (ii) to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interesled.

¶41

(b) Threatening a person with injury; (i) to cause alarm lo that^person, or (ii) to cause the person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, or

¶42

(iii) to cause that person to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do as the means of avoiding the execution of such threal.

¶43

¶44

¶45

I l. In order to attract the ingredients of Section 506 IPC, the intention of the accused must be to cause alarm to the victim. Mere expression of words, 'without any intention to cause alarm', woukl not be sufficient. In order to constitute offence under the said section, it lnust be shown that the person charged actually threatened another with injury to his person, reputation or property.

¶46

Coming to the case on hand, it is alleged in the complaint that the petitioner threatened the complainant with dire consequences stating that if she comes again, he will see her end and abused her in filthy language. The said allegations appear to be bald and there are no specific allegations. Further, the ingredients ofthe offence under Section 506 IPC are not present.

¶47

Since the dispute between the parties in only in respect of breach of terms and conditions of the agreement and only bald allegations are leveled against the petitioner as to criminal intimidation and, moreover, when the ingredients of the offence under Section 420 IPC are missing, the offence under Section 506 IPC would not survive.

¶48

¶49

In view ol the above, this cour-t is of the view that the allegations in the complaint are not sutllcient to constitute the offences under Sections 420 and 506 IPC. Therefore, I am of the considered view that continuation of the present proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law. It is, therefore, considered a fit case to invoke the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C and quash further proceedings against the petitioner/ accused.

¶50

I 5. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed. The proceedings against the petitioner/accused in pursuance of the F.l.R in Cr.No.555 of 2013 of Jubilee Hills Police Station, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed.

¶51

Pending miscellaneous^{petitions, if} any,^{stand closed.}

¶52

¶53

SD/-N.CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// | :<sup>''1 ' SECTION OFFICER

¶54

To,

¶55

The XVll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad. 2. The Station House Officer, Jubilee Hills Police Station Hyderabad District. 3. One CC to SRl. H SRINIVASA RAo,Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to the PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.IOUT] 5. Two CD Copies

¶56

One Spare Copy

.\r'-

HIGH COURT

DATE D: 1 610612022

I ,/
c-,.? tfii I
JL<br>t

¶62

ORDER

¶63

GRLP.No.15106 of 2013

¶64

ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶65

ao 22ob

Mohana Rayalu v. the State of a.P., Rep., by Its Pp and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohana Rayalu v. the State of a.P., Rep., by Its Pp and Another

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

M. Vijay Kumar Vs The State Acb

K.Sudhakar Goud Vs the State of Telangana.,Rep.,Pp

E.Ashwathama Reddy, Vs The State of A.P.

Myneni Surendra, Usa., Vs the State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

Tirigipalli Krishnakanth Vs Kadarla Lalitha Kumari

Tigura Sankar Reddy Vs the State, through Sho., and Another