Partly allowed

Rjeshwariraman v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC26 Sept 2022CRLP/467/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court partially allowed criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Charge sheet for cheating under Section 417 IPC was quashed due to lack of material, while proceedings for misappropriation under Section 406 IPC were dismissed with direction to proceed with trial.

What did the court decide?

Criminal petition allowed in part; charge sheet for Section 417 IPC quashed; proceedings for Section 406 IPC dismissed with direction to proceed with trial.

Rjeshwariraman Vs State of Telangana — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

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

¶2

I,4ONDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE^D.NAGARJUN

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO:^{467OF 2018}

¶6

Between:

¶7

Rajeshwari Raman, Wo Jayaram^{Gunturu Aged -39 years, occ.privateservice,} No. 1-1-7\OtN12, Gandhinagar,^{Hyderabad- 500080 ...Petitioner/Accused}

¶8

AND

¶9

The State Of Telangana, through^{Public Prosecutor, High Courtof Judicature} at Hyderabad.

¶10

Respo nde nUCom^pla inant

¶11

Gunturu Jayaram, S/o Varaprasad^{Aged 4Oyears,Occ:BusinessRl/o.A-702,} Aparna Heights, Kondapur, Hyderabad-500084

¶12

RespondenUDefacto ComPlainant

¶13

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^{praying that in the circumstancesstated} in the Memorandum of Grounds^{of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased} to quash the case in CC.No.^{1'106 of 2017 on the file of the XXV Metropolitan} Magistrate, Cyberabad at Miyapur^{(FlR No. 457 of 2017 of PS.,Gachibowli) against} the petitioner in respect of offences^{punishableu/s. 497, 417 and 406 IPC'}

¶14

lA NO: 1 OF 2018

¶15

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^praying that^{in the circumstances stated in} the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal^{Petition,the HighCourt may be pleased to} dispense with the filing of the certified copy^{of theCC.No.1 '106 of 2017 onthefileof} the XXV Metropolitan Magistrate,^{Cyberabad at Miyapur.}

¶16

¶17

lA NO: 2 OF 2018

¶18

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^{prayingthat in the circumstancesstatedin} the lvlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal^{Petition,the HighCourt may be pleased} to,stay further^proceedings including^{the arrest of the petitionerin CC.No.'1 106 of} 2017 on the file of the XXV Metropolitan^{fVagistrate, Cyberabadat [,4iyapur}

¶19

The petition coming on for hearing,^{upon perusingthe Memorandum of Grounds of} Criminal Petition upon hearing the arguments^{of Sri S VANI, Advocatefor the} Petitioner, and of the Additional Public^{Prosecutoron behalf of the RespondentNo.'1} and of Sri C.NAGESHWAR RAO rep by Sri.^{R.RANGANATHAN Advocatefor the} Respondent No.2

¶20

Thc Court madc the follorving:ORDER

¶21

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE^D.NAGARJUN

¶22

CRIMINAL PETITION^{No.467of 2018}

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

This petition is filed by the^{petitioner/A2challenging} the charge sheet filed in^{C.C.No.1106 of 2Ol7 cognizanceof} which was taken against her for^{the offencesunder} Sections 417 and 406^IPC.

¶25

The facts in brief as^per the^{charge sheet liled before} the Court are as under:

¶26

The marriage of the petitioter I^{A2 wasperformedwith} the de-facto complainant on^{09.05.2007and during their} wedlock, they were blessed with two children.^{In the year} 2016 the de-facto complainant came^{to know that the} petitioner/A2 was addicted to heary smoking, drinking^and habituated to have sexual relations with^severalother persons prior to her marriage. Even after marriage, she has continued her immoral and illegal contacts with various men without his knowledge. The de-facto complainant noticed when the petitioner/A2 was having sexual contact with a person by name Suraj Iyer/Al. On

¶27

¶28

24.O5.2017 , the petitioner / A2 left to Nagpur by leaving the children u,ith the de-facto complainant arrd came back on 25.07.2017. During that time, A1 and A2 resided in room No.419 at a star hotel, Nagpur, as husband and wife. The petitioner/A2 has cheated and deceived the de-facto complainant ald also misappropriated the funds.

¶29

On a complaint Iiled by the de-facto complainant, the Police have registered a case in Crime No.457 of 2Ol7 for the offences under Sections 417 and 497 IPC. During the course of investigation, the investigating oflicer recorded detailed statement of de-facto complainant, went to Nagpur, visited Tuli Imperial Hotel and examined and recorded the scene of offence panchanama at Room No.419, examined the Manager and boys of ttre Hotel, who stated that A1 and A2 represented themselves to be wife and husbald and they have seen both of them in compromising position and they put "do not disturb" board. The investigating offlcer has collected data, hotel details, ID proof submitted by the petitioner and other details of money paid for stie in the hotel etc and

¶30

¶31

recorded the statements of other witnesses and finally filed charge sheet, which was taken on file as C.C.No. 1106 of 2017 on the file of learned XXV Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Miyapur for the offence under Section 497 IPC against A1 and for the offence under Sections 417 and 406 IPC against the petitionerlA2. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/A2 has liled the present criminal petition to quash the proceedings against her in C.C.No. i 106 of 2OIZ on the tile of Iearned XXV Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Miyapur on the following grounds:

¶32

a. The de-facto complainant has subjected the petitioner/A2 to harassment both physically and mentally. The petitioner/A1 was successful professional having worked in various associations like Vodafone and Indus Ind Bank. During the course of her professional requirement, she used to interact with several persons. However, irrespective of the age of the person with whom she was interacting, the de-facto complainant used to suspect her and used to attribute nexus with everybody to whom she speaks.

¶33

J...n

¶34

¶35

b. On O2.O2.2O17 the de-facto complainant asked the petitioner/ A2 that he would take divorce from her and asked her to vacate within one hour but she refused. On O7.O2.2OI7, the de-facto complainant along with his pa,rents took away her children and they did not respond to her and the petitioner did not know the whereabouts of her children and it was told that she will not be permitted to see the children, unless she gives consent for divorce. The petitioner has approached l,egal Services Authorit5r seeking assistance on which the minor daughter was returned to the petitioner on 22.O5.2017.

¶36

c. On a complaint filed by the petitioner/A2, a case in Crime No.1O0 of 2017 was registered against the de-facto complainant and charge sheet was dlso liled. The de-facto complainant has approached the petitioner for amicable settlement stating that he will give permanent custody of minor daughters and made several promises. On agreeing the same, the case against the de-facto complainant was setfled before Lok Adalat and thereby he was acquitted.

¶37

¶38

d. The contents of the complaint did not disclose any offence. Being woman she cannot be accused of committing an offence under Section 492 IpC and words 'sexual intercourse, are missing in the charge sheet ald thereby there is no offence under Sectio n 492 lpC. There is no mention as to for which charges the de_facto complainant has tral sferred the money. There is no document or material filed in respect of offence under Sections 406 and 4IZ IpC. Since the relationship of the petitioner ald the de-facto complainant is still majntaining, the offence under Section 406 IpC cannot be attributed.

¶39

e. The petitioner found it extremely difficult as she had no income and thereby she took assistance of A1 to secure a consultant job and accordingly she went to Nagpur in the month of May, 2OlZ. The de_facto complainant should have filed complaint in the year 2orz and, there is a delay, which is not explained in Iiling the complaint. Continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No. I106 of 2017 amounts to gross abuse of process of

¶40

¶41

-r---I

¶42

lau,and thereby sought for quashment of the proceedings against her in C.C.No.1 106 of 2O17 .

¶43

The de-iacto complainant has filed counter affidavit along with certain documents, the sum and substance of which, runs as under:

¶44

On account of petitioner/A2 was addicted to tobacco and liquor and she used to consume the same secretly in one of the rooms. There used to be heated exchange of words between them on account of attitude. The petitioner/A2 walked away from the house in the month of February, 2017 and did not return. The petitioner lA2 l:,as developed adulterous life, wherein she went to Nagpur along with accused No. 1, stayed in a star hotel and checked in as Mr. and Miss. Iyer and she has given attested copy of PAN Card as ID proof and she paid hotel bills and signed on the bills and signed on the check in hotel form apart from providing her mobile number on it and paid Rs.6O,O00/- towards food and liquor. She also informed the hotel that there shall not be any house - keeping for four days and she -misbehaved with waiter in

¶45

¶46

----rf

¶47

an inebriated condition and when the hotel boys visited inside the room, the petitioner and accused No.l were found in a compromising position. The petitioner has admitted that she travelled to Nagpur with accused No. 1. the net assets value of the petitioner's properties is rupees 2.05 crores apart from Rs.73 lakhs transferred by the defacto complainant - respondent No.2 to her account with an understanding that she would invest the same for the benellt of family but the petitioner has misappropriated the salne. The petitioner is a graduate from IIM, highly qualified and admittedty held top positions in the corporate world and contended that she went to Suraj Iyer for consultancy job is incorrect. The de-facto complainant _ respondent No.2 has filed copies of the statements recorded by the Police at Pune.

¶48

7 . Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent No.2 and the learned Assistant public Prosecutor for the State.

¶49

¶50

-!I

¶51

Now, the point for determination is whether the charge sheet filed against the petitioner in C.C.No.1lO6 of 2Ol7 can be quashed?

¶52

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner lA2 being a woman, no criminal case can be registered against her for the offences punishable under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code. The submissions of the petitioner/A2 in respect of offence under Section 497 IPC need not be considered as no cognizance was taken again st the petitioner-accused No.2 for the offence under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, so fzrr as the petitioner/A2 is concerned, the offence under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be attributed against her.

¶53

It is submitted further that the petitioner/A2 has committed the offence of cheating punishable under Section 4I7 lPC. In order to fasten the liabiLity of cheating, the accused should intentionally induce the victim to deliver any property or retain any property and that inducement shall be to do anything or to omit to do /

¶54

¶55

anything otherwise he would not have done so and on account of such act, a damage or harm is caused to the person either to his mind or reputation or property.

¶56

The Hon'ble Apex Court in Prof. R.K. Vijayasarathy and another vs. Sudha Seetharam and anotherr, wherein

¶57

it is held at paras 15 to 17 as under:

¶58

'15. Section 415 of the Penal Code reads thus:

¶59

"415. Cheating, - Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceiyed, and which act or omission causes or is Iikely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat'."

¶60

The ingredients to constitute an offence of cheating are as follows:

¶61

16.1. There should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him:

¶62

16.1.1. The person so induced should be intentionally induced to deliver any property to any person or to consent tllat any person shall retain arry property, or

¶63

16.1.2. Thc person so induced should be intentionally induced to do or to omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived; and

¶64

16.2. ln cases covered by L6.1.2. above, the act or omission should be one which caused or is likely to cause damage or harm to the person induced in body, mind, reputation or property.

¶65

17 . A fraudulent or dishonest inducement is an essential ingredient of the offence, A person who

¶66

'^{(2019) 16 SCC739}

¶67

l(l

¶68

dishoncstly induces another person to deliver aly property is liable for t]re offence of cheating.,'

¶69

There are no allegations that petitioner-accused No.2 has induced the de-facto complainant - respondent No.2 from the inception with a fraudulent or dishonest intention to deliver any property and accordingly the de-facto complainant has delivered the property, thereby harm has been caused to the mind, body or reputation or property belonging to the de-facto complainant - respondent No.2.

¶70

The allegations made against the petitioner is that she being wife of the de-facto complainant - respondent No.2 has addicted to bad vices like smoking, drinking, had sexual intercourse with many persons and that she went along with accused No. 1 to Nagpur and spend four days in a star hotel, where they had sexual intercourse.

¶71

There is also no allegation in the complaint that prior to the marriage, the petitioner/A2 induced the de-facto complainant with dishonest intention. There is no material placed before the Court by the de-facto complainant - respondent No.2 to show that the acts committed by the

¶72

¶73

petitioner/A2^{arnounts to offence underSection 415 of the} Indian Penal^{Code punishableundersection417 of the} Indian Penal^{Code. In the absence of any material or} record, it cannot^{be aliegedthat the petitioner/A2has} committed^{offencepunishableunderSection 417 of the} Indian Penal^Code.

¶74

The other^{allegation levelledagainst the petitioneris} that she has^{misappropriatedthe money belonging to the} de-facto complainant,^{thereby itis alleged that she has} committed^{offencepunishableunder Section 406 IPC'} According to the^{de-factocomplainalt, the petitioner/A2} has misused^{moneyentrustedto her'}

¶75

It is alleged^{by the de-factocomplainantthat he has} transferred an^{amountof Rs.73 lakhs to her out of the sale} proceeds of an apartment,^{whichbelong to the de-facto} complainant^{and the petitioner jointly'Evenaccording to} the de-facto complainalt,^{an amount of Rs'35 lakhs is the} share of the Petitioner/A2.

¶76

¶77

¶78

In respect of the allegation of misappropriation of money, in the statement of the de-facto complainant under Section i61 Cr.p.C., there is no clarity at al1 except giving certain details in the counter filed by him. No explanation is offered as to why these details could not be furnished to the police during the course of investigation.

¶79

Hari Gopal/LW.S, who stated to be a mediator between the petitioner and respondent No.2, has mentioned in his statement under Section 16l Cr.p.C., that the petitioner/A2 misused the money that was entrusted to her with good intention by addicting to liquor and smoking. It is very surprising that this witness, who is not related and not connected to the internal family affairs, has stated to tj're police about the money transferred between husband and wife and he goes to the extent that the money tralsferred by the de_facto complainant in good taith has been misused by his wife.

¶80

Further, even according to the de-facto complainant, the petitioner

¶81

IS highly qualified person, as she is a graduate from IIM and has worked in MNCs in // top

¶82

¶83

positions. That means she must have also earned some money in addition to the income earned by the de-facto complainant. In a family of husband and wife, the money belonging to the husband will be transferred to wife and the money belonging to the wife will also be transferred to husband. Both of them will be spending money for running the family and for other requirements etc. Though the de-facto complainant has been alleging that the petitioner/A2 has committed criminal breach of trust, she also should be given an opportunity to explain what amounts were transferred by the de-facto complainant and how much money she a,lso spent for the family.

¶84

This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking quashment of charge sheet against the petitioner/A2. It is settled law that the petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C., can be considered favourably in case if on the face of it even if the contents of charge sheet are accepted to be true, there shall not be grounds to allege that the petitioner/A2 has committed the offence alleged against him. So far as offence under Section 406 is

¶85

¶86

concerned, since amounts have been transferred by the defacto complainant in favour of the petitionerlA2 since it is alleged that the petitioner/A2 has not accounted for, the sarne has to be decided after full fledged tria1. Similarly, it is to be considered whether the money transferred by husband to the wife can be termed as entrustment of money and if so on account of not giving the accounts by the wife can be termed as misappropriation punishable under Section 406 IPC. Unless full-fledged trial is taken up, the issue discussed above cannot be decided.

¶87

2L. Therefore, basing on the prima facie material against the petitioner/A2, this petition is liable to be dismissed for t-he offence under Section 406 IPC and the trial Court is required to proceed with the trial as per law.

¶88

In the result, the criminal petition is allowed in part. The charge sheet against the petitioner in respect of the offence under Section 417 IPC is quashed, whereas the charge sheet so far as the offence under Section 406 IPC is concerned, is dismissed. The trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial so far as the offence under Section

¶89

¶90

406 IPC is concerned as per law uninfluenced by the

¶91

comments and observations made by this Court during the

¶92

course of discussion in respect of the merits of the case.

¶93

Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶94

To'

¶95

Sd/. L.SIVA PARVATHI ASSISTANIREGISTRAR //TRUE COPYil ('. lt> tur SECTION OFFTCER

¶96

The XXV Metropolitan tVlagistrate, Cyberabad at Miyapur

¶97

The Sub lnspector of police, police Station Gachibowli, Cyberabad

¶98

Two CCs to Public prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (OUT)

¶99

One CC to Ms. S VANI, Advocate tOpUCl

¶100

9ne CC to SRl. C.NAGESHWAR RAO rep by R RANGANATHAN Advocate toPUCl

¶101

Two CD Copies

f^{. One q,ac-qg-}

HIGH COURT

DT.DNRJ

DATED:2610912022

ORDER

I
a. 1t" f- 9TA irr-' (..<br>a,
{;i)
t
i1
|lu! 2$22
5.:y;11€ll

¶108

CRLP.No.467 of 2018

¶109

ALLOWING THE CITL,I'ETITION IN PARTLY

¶110

(1
fn0.
1,.

Rjeshwariraman v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rjeshwariraman v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kavvampally Durgaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Koppula Vijay Bhaskar Reddy Vs State of Telangana

Pannala Govardhan Reddy Vs Smt. B.Laxmi

N. Manohar Reddy Vs Syed Fhazil

The State of Telangana Vs Vangalpudi Vijaya Kumar

Mr.Puneeth Agarwal and 2 others Vs The State of Telangana and another