Allowed

Chava Kodanda Ramaiah v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC19 Dec 2022CRLP/201/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a quashing petition under Section 482 CrPC. It held that charging the petitioner with cheating (IPC 420/406) was incorrect since he only paid interest on behalf of the principal accused, who received the loan and separated from the complainant. The ingredients of misappropriation were not attracted to the petitioner. Speaker: Justice K. Surender.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings against the petitioner in C.C. No. 8256 of 2020 pending before the XVI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, were quashed.

Chava Kodanda Ramaiah Vs The State of Telangana — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TVONDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITI ON NO: 2O1 OF 2022

¶6

Between:

¶7

Chava Kodanda Ramaiah, S/o. Late Sambaiah, Aged about. g4 years, Occ. 9enior^{Citizen,RJo. Flat No. 201, HIG-9, Chitrlpuri} Colony,^'Khaliguda, l,4anikonda. Near Andhra Bank, Hyderabad, TS (A3).

¶8

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED A3

¶9

AND

¶10

'1 . The State of Telangana, l|rgugh Jubilee Hills, police Station, Hyderabad Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, at Hyderabad.

¶11

Jammula Sunil Kumar, S/o. Late Jammula Krishna Reddy, Aged about. 62 years, Occ. Business..R/o. plot No. 138, Street No. 17, pras6asan Nagar, Road No. 72, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, TS.

¶12

...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT

¶13

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.p.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the [,4emorandum of Grounds of criminal petition, the High court may be pleased to call for the records relating to c.c.No. g2s6 of 2o2o, on the file of the Hon'ble XVll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Hyderabad, TS, which was arose out of Crime No. 529/2019, dated. 1 .1 .0g.2019, and same was registered U/Sec. 406, 420 of lpC and said false crime registered by the SHO, Jubilee Hills, Police Station. Hyderabad, against the petitioner/Accused A3 herein, pursuant to the false and frivolous compliant of the 2nd respondent herein, without there being any valid reasons and grievance of the 2nd respondent, and to quash proceedings thereon.

¶14

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2022

¶15

Pelition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the lt4emorandum of Grounds of Criminal petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings including appe-rance of the Petitroner/Accused 43, in .C.C.No. 8256 of 2020, on the file of the Hon,ble XVll Additional Chief lVetropolitan Magistrate, at Hyderabad, TS, pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition.

¶16

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Shaik Madar, Advocate for the Petitioner and of the Additional Public Prosecutor for the state of Telangana on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri T.lV.K. CHAITANYA, Advocate for the Respondent No.2

¶17

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

Crl.Petition No.201 of 2022

¶19

¶20

THE HONOURABLE SRI ]USTICE K.SURENDER

¶21

A P N 2 F 2022

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

This Criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 (for short .Cr.p.C.J by the petitioner_ Accused No.3 to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.g256 of 202A pending on the file of XI/II Additionat Chref Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad.

¶24

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and learnecl Additional public prosecutor for the respondent No.1 - State. perused the recorcj"

¶25

It is the case of the de factocomplainant that Accusecj No.1 was into Trading of Liquor and Wirre business ano planning tc open a restaurant and Bar, for which reason. he needed short term loan faciiity and requested finaricial assistance frorn the de facto complainant. The de factocomplainant paid cash to Accused Nos.1 and 2 and also the petitioner herein. Accused No.i executed three demand promissory notes for Rs.25,00,000/_ each ano gave an undertaking in favour of de facttt complainant that he received

¶26

Crl.Petition^{No'201of 2022}

¶27

¶28

Rs.75,00,000/-^{in cash and would be repaid along with interest} within 12^{mcnths'Further AccusedNo'1 executed Deposit of Title} Deeds in^{favourof de factocomplainant, wherein he also deposited} A2's^{pattedarpassbook and ownership document'Further' thereis} an MOU^{in betweenAccused No'1 and de facto complainant'} Accused^{No.1 was paid interest regularly for some time and became} irregular^{thereafter'On 10'10'2016 lhe de facto complainant'gave} Rs,65,00,000/-^{to Accused No'I' makinga total loan amountof} Rs.1,40,00,000/-"^{The amount was to be repald withinone year} and interest^{would be paid on monthlybasis' Till January'2017 the} Accused^{No.1 paid interestand thereafterbecameirregular'} Meanwhile,^{AccusedNos'1 and 2 wound up theirbusinessand left} to USA^{and were not responding to the de facto complainant' In} the^{year 2018, after the Governmentissuing new passbooks' the} said^{pass bookswere not handedover to the de facto complainant} andAccusedNo.iand2weretryingtodisposethepropertywhich was mortgaged^{to him' Thereby'this petitionerwho is Accused} No.3 along^{with Accused No'1 and 2 have cheated lhe de facto} compiainant^{and aiso misappropriatedhis amount'}

¶29

Crl.Petition No.2Ot of 2O2Z

¶30

¶31

The police having receive the said complain! investigated the case and filed charge sheet for the offences under Sections 406 and 42Q of ipC against the petitioner he:.ein and also Accused Nos.l and 2.

¶32

Learned counsel appearing; for the petitioner submits that there are onry vague ailegations against the petitioner and the question of the petitioner,s involvement in the transaction in between Accused No.1 and de tactocomplainant does not arise.

¶33

On the other hand, the ts21ns6 counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that in the notice given under Section 41_ A Cr.P.C. the petitioner has informed the police that he used to pay the interest amount on behalf of Accused No.1 to the de facto complainant. It is apparent thar this petitioner had knowledge about the transactions and he is also invoived, for which reason, the proceedings against this petitioner cannot be quashed.

¶34

To attract an offence under Section 420 of IpC it has to be proved that there was deliberate misrepresentation by a person, pursuant to which such person should have been induced by believing the said misrepresentation and parted with property.

¶35

Crl,Petition^{No'201of 2022}

¶36

¶37

In^{the said case whenthe loan transactionis in between} AccusedNo.land|hedefactocomplainantandAccusedNo.lhas received^{the loan amountby mortgaging his property' the question} of this^{petltionermaking any misrepresentationor receiving any} property from^{the de factocomplainant does not arise'It is not the} case of^{lhe de factocomplainantthat any amounts were passed on} to this^{petitioner in the ioan process' The said loan amounts were} in fact^{advanced to Accused No'1' Even accordingto lhe de facto} complainant^{when the entire amounts werepaid to AccusedNo'1'} the^{question of this petitionermisappropriatingthe amounts} entrusted^{to AccusedNo'1does not arise' Payinginterest amount} to the^{complainantfor the loan given to Accused No'l' by this} petitioner-Accuseo^{No 3 wouldnot makethe petitioner complicitof} cheating^{or misaPProPriation'}

¶38

In^{view cf the aforesaidreasons' when none of the} ingredients^{?lther Section 420 or 406 of IPC are attracted'the} proceedings^{agalnst this petitiorrerare liable to be quashed'}

¶39

10.^{Accordingly'the Crimi[ral Petition is allowedand the} proceedings^{againstthe petitionqr-AccusedNo'3 in C'C'No'8256 of}

¶40

Crl.Petition No.ZO1 of 2022

¶41

2020 pending on the file of XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan --" M&jfti:'iA;i Hiieiirjia ;;6"riAftbi d;fiAa"l.**--

¶42

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand ciosed.

¶43

Sd/. B. SATYAVATHI DEPUTY REGIS/RAR //TRUE COPY// ./ sEcroN 6irrcen

¶44

To,

¶45

The XVll Additional Chief lvletropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad. 2. The Station House Officer, Police Station Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad District 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor for the state of Telangana at Hyderabad (our) 4. One CC to SRl. SHAIK MADAR, Advocate IOPUCI 5. One CC to SRl. T.N/.K. CHAITANYA, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies VH -\A\d

HIGH COURT

KSJ

DATED:1911212022

ORDER

CRLP.No.201 of 2022

irrE Sr4 )'6,
o.,t,
,}
', t<br>2 0 Jp,ll 2[73 brl:-i
i,/
,/
!l*, €-',,

¶52

r\l.LOWING TI IE CItIMINAt. PETITION

¶53

Chava Kodanda Ramaiah v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chava Kodanda Ramaiah v. The State of Telangana

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

Nadeem Khan Vs The State of Telangana

Mr. Mohammed Waseeq alias Md. Wasik Vs The State of Telangana

KurumpallySrishailam and 2 Others Vs State of Telanagana and another

Laxman Nagi Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Lavudya , Rathod Kavitha and 2 Others Vs The State of Telangana and Another

B.Raghavendra Rao Vs Smt.B.Bharani