Dismissed

Dr.Nb.Ramaiah v. Kaushal Kishore and Another

Telangana HC9 Feb 2022CRLP/4942/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed to quash criminal proceedings. The Court held that the complainant made out a prima facie case for cheating under Sections 415 and 420 I.P.C. and thus investigation was necessary before quashing.

What did the court decide?

Request of the petitioner to quash the proceedings could not be honoured; petition dismissed and interim stay vacated.

Dr.Nb.Ramaiah Vs Kaushal Kishore and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

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

¶3

WEDNESDAY,THE^{NINTH DAY OF FEBRUARY} "-"rwt +rousAND AND TWENTY TWo

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA}

¶6

CRIMI^{NALP ETITIONNO: 4942 OF2014}

¶7

Between:

¶8

N. Jaoannadham,^{Occ:Consultant'FUo1 0-4-38/1/C/A'Nandula} DR.NB.Ramarah'^S/oLate Ir,4asa-b Tank,^HYderabad Nilayam^{Humayun Nagar'}

¶9

,..PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶10

AND

¶11

occ^{: BusinessRro 8-3-31 8/11 / 1 7/3'}

¶12

1 H;i,l"X5'3"%?!:3^{$. t-ffi?l Ai::.:3,"0"}

¶13

2 The^{State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by lts Public Prosecutor, High court of A.P.,} Hvderabad

¶14

"'RESPoNDENTS/..MPLAINANT.

¶15

Petition^{under Section 482of Cr'P C ' prayingthat in the circumstancesstated in} the l\ilemorandum^{of Groundsof CriminalPetition' the High court may be pleased to} quash the^{proceedingsagainst the petitoiner in CrimeNo 988 of 2013 of Sanjeeva} Reddy^{Nagar, PoliceStation'Hyderabad'}

¶16

N :2OF 0 CRL PM^{P.N o'.46270 F2014}

¶17

Petition^{under Section 482 o{ Cr'P C praying that in the circumstances statedin} the Memorandum^{of Grounds of Criminal Petition'the High Courtmay be pleased} to stay all^{further proceedings in CrimeNo 988/2013' of Sanjeeva ReddyNagar} Pol ice Station,^HYderabad

¶18

This Petition^{coming on for hearing'uponperusing the Memorandumof Grounds} of Criminal^{Petition and upon hearing the argumentsof Sri D'PURNACHANDRA} REDDY,^{Advocatefor the Petitioner and Sri SyedAliM urtuza'Advocatefor Respondent} No.1 and^{the Public Prosecutor(TG)'on behalf of the Respondent No 2}

¶19

The Court^{made the following:oRDER}

¶20

¶21

iL t

¶22

HONOURABLE DT. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶23

CRIMINAL PETITION No.4942 of 2014

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

This is a Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking the Court to quash the proceedings that are pending against the petitioner in Crime No.988 of 2013 of Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar Police Station.

¶26

A private complaint was filed before the Court of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad by respondent No.1 and the said complaint u,as relerred to the Station House Officer, S. R. Nagar Police Station for investigation and report. The said complaint in turn formed basis for registration of case in Crime No.988 of 2013 by S.R.Nagar Poiice, Hyderabad. Registration of case against him is questioned arrd the relief to quash the said First Information Report is sought for. Thus, in the light of the above factual scena-rio, the point that arises for consideration is:

¶27

Whether there exists any justifi.able grounds to qttash the proceedings that are pending against

¶28

t I I

¶29

D..CSL, J 2 Crl.P.N0.4942 o12014

¶30

the petitioner in Crime No'988 of^{2013 of} S.R.Nagar Police Station, Hgderabad as^praAed for?

¶31

The contents of the complaint, in^{nutshell,are that} the petitioner (hereinafter be referred^{as "the accused" for} the sake of convenience of^{discussion) approached} respondent No.l^{(hereinaJterbe referred as "the defacto} complainaxt" for the sake of^{convenienceof discussion)} through a common friend^{and requested Rs.25 lakhs for} investment in G.Life Health^{Care PrivateLimited.Believing} the version of the accused, the^{said sum was paid by the} defacto complainant. Later,^{the cheque that was given by} the accused was dishonoured.^{When the accused was} informed about the same, he^{paid Rs. 1,50,000/- in cash} and issued a fresh^{cheque for Rs'23,50,000/-. But the said} cheque also^got bounced^{on the ground that it exceedsthe} arrangement. The^{accused pretended that he isa} businessman^{and expert in doing businessin G'Life Health} Care Private^{Limitedand thereby, intentionallydeceived} the defacto^{complainantald madehim invest Rs'25 lakhs'} The accused^{has also cheated many other persons in the}

¶32

ir I

¶33

) Ctl.P.No.4942 DT,CSL, oI20l4J

¶34

narne of scheme in G.Life Health Care Pri'.rate Limited. When questioned, the accused threatened the defacto complainant with dire consequences by stating that he is a member of Lions Club arrd other Clubs and that he is Chairman and Managing Director of Satya Kumar Estates (P) Limited and Chief Advisor of many companies and that, he would see that his family would be ruined.

¶35

Making his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused contends that the accused is innocent and there is no iota of truth and all the allegations are invented for the purpose of implicating the accused in a false case. The leamed counsel also submits that failure to repay the loan will not amount to any offence, more so, under Section 42O I.P.C. and further, the allegations that attract the offence punishable under Section 506 I.p.C. were invented for the purpose of Iiling a private complaint. The learned counsel further states that the accused is a Financial Consultalt and it is the defacto complainant who approached the accused for making investment. The learned counsel also states that even the accused pas

¶36

¶37

¶38

D CSL. J Ctl.P.No.a942 oJ 20ta

¶39

cheated by the persons who managed G.Life Health Care Private Limited and in that regard, the accused lodged a private complaint in the Court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kakardooma, New Delhi and the same is numbered as case in Crime No.99 of 2Ol3 and is pending. The leamed counsel also states that the signatures of the accused were taken on blank cheques and if there is anything to be proceeded with, it should be only through civil court and not by filing a private compraint and therefore, the proceedings have to be quashed.

¶40

On the other hand, learned Assistant public Prosecutor, stated that excePt through thorough investigation, the truth cannot come out and hence, permission has to be accorded to proceed with the tnvestigation by dismissing the present crimina.l petition.

¶41

6 Though the defacto complainant is represented by a counsel, he failed to submit his contentions.

¶42

7 Section 415 I.p.C. defines the word ..cheating, and it reads as follows:

¶43

Dr.CSL. J Crl.P.No.4942 of20l.l

t i

"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 intenlionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat"."

¶48

If by the act of cheating, a person is dishonestly induced to deliver any property or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any pa.rt of a valuable security or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, he is said to have committed the offence punishable under Section 420 I.p.C.

¶49

In the case on hand, the version of the defacto complainant is that believing the words of the accused, he parted with the money and the accused though issued a cheque for the arnount paid, he could not realize the amount and thereby, the accused cheated him. The circumstances under which the defacto complainant gave money to the accused prima facie falls within the purviewl

¶50

6 Dr.CSL, J Ctl.P.No.1912 ol20l4

¶51

i t

¶52

of Sections 415 and 420 LP.C. The version of the defacto complainant is that r'vhen questioned, he was threatened by the accused. The contention of the accused is that he was also deceived and he lodged a complaint at New De1hl. Thus, to know who has deceived whom and who is the real culprit, there is every necessity for the Police to investigate. The investigation cannot be stalled or stopped by^quashing the proceedings when pima facie case is made out. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the request of the petitioner to quash the proceedings cannot be honoured.

¶53

1 0. Resultantly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Interim stay granted on 28.04.2014 stands vacated.

¶54

Pending Miscellaneous Petitions. -if alty, shall^stand

¶55

closed.

¶56

SD/- I.NAGALAKSHMI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTI FFICER

To, l.TheCourtofllllAdditionalChieftr4etropolitanMagistrateatHyderabad. Z. fn"^{Stution House Oficer,Sanjeeva Reddy nagarP S''Hyderabad}

¶61

g. o"" cc tt sRl. D PURNACrinruoRn^{REDDY,Advocate [oPUC]} +. O"" CC to^{SRI.SYED ALII'{URTUZA,Advocate [OPUC]} s. i*" cc,,^{t" the public prosecutor,High court for the stateof relangana at} Hyderabad [OUT].

¶62

Two^{CD Copies}

¶63

One Spare^CoPY.

pcsd

iri. I

HIGH COURT

DATED:0910212022

$E ST4 !G
,$ i ri'?': ,l '
{J
/
* t)

¶71

ORDER

¶72

CRLP.No.4942^{of 2014}

¶73

DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION

¶74

v
3

Dr.Nb.Ramaiah v. Kaushal Kishore and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.Nb.Ramaiah v. Kaushal Kishore 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

J. Sunitha, Hyd and 2 Others Vs State of a.P., Rep. by P.P., Hyd and Anr.

B.V.S. Someshwar Vs State of Ap., Rep through the P.P and Anotehrs

Rahat Unnisa, Hyd and 2 Othrs., Vs Qamar Sultana, Hyd and Anr., Rep Pp.

Mohd. Ghouse Nakshabandi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

T.Karunaka Raju Vs the State of Ap., Rep by Its P.P and 3 Others

Smt. Yamuna Bai Vs the State of A.P. and Another