Allowed

Guniganti Ravinder Rao v. Sunil Kumar Bontha

Telangana HC13 Sept 2022CRLP/621/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana heard a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of criminal proceedings instituted against two accused based on an invoice dispute regarding villa marketing. Finding the dispute essentially civil in nature and lacking prima facie grounds for criminal offences, the Court held that continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of process and quashed them.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings initiated against the petitioners in Crime No. 720 of 2021 at Raidurgam Police Station, Cyberabad, were quashed, and pending miscellaneous petitions were closed.

Guniganti Ravinder Rao Vs Sunil Kumar Bontha — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

[^320e I

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 621 OF 2022

¶7

Between:

¶8

Guniganti Ravinder Rao, S/o. Late G. Venkat Rao, aged about 60 years, Occupation Business, Rt/o. Flat No. 201 , Plot No. 3101 1 , Ayyappa Society, I\rlad hapur, Hyderabad.

¶9

Guniganti Praveen Kumar, S/o. Narsingh Rao, aged 43 years, aged about 43 years, Occupation- Business Rl/o. H. No. 3- 1 5, Domakonda Mandal, Amberpet, Nizamabad, Telangana.

¶10

...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED

¶11

AND

¶12

1 . Sunil Kumar Bontha, S/o. B. Damodar Rao, aged about 46 years, OccupationExecutive Director R:/o. Flat No. B-1302, My Home Abhra, In-Orbit mall road, Gachibowli, Hyderabad, India

¶13

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad

¶14

...RESPONDENT No.1/COMPLAINANT

¶15

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the lVlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash all further proceedings in Crime No. 720 of 2O21 in Raidurgam Police Station, Cyberabad daled 2211.2O21, in the interest of^justice.

¶16

l.A. NO: 3 OF 2022

¶17

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 suspend the operation of the Look Out Circular issued as against the petitioner No. 1 in respect to Crime No. 720 of 2021 of Raidurgam Police Station. Cyberabad, dated 22.11.2021 ,^pending disposal of the above Criminal petition and pass

¶18

I.A. NO: 2 OF 2022

¶19

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 including arrest of the petitioners in Crime No. 720 of 2021 in Raidurgam Police Station, Cyberabad dated 22.1r1.2021 ,^pending disposal of the above Criminal petition.

¶20

This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri T S ANIRUDH REDDY ,Advocate for the Petitioner and of the Assistant public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No.2 and of sri Khaja Vizarath Ali, Advocate for the Respondent No.1

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

¶23

Dr.CSL,t Crl.P.NO.621 of 2022

¶24

THE HON,BLE DT. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA CRIMINAL PETITION No. 62L OF 2022

¶25

ORDER:-

¶26

Seeking the court to quash the proceedings that are AS initiated against the petitioners who are arrayed Accused Nos. 1 & 2 in Crime No. 720 of 2O2l of Raidurgam Police Station, the present Criminal Petition is filed.

¶27

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for Respondent No. 1as well as the learned Assistant Pubiic Prosecutor representing the Respondent No.2.

¶28

On the ground that the petitioners have committed oflences punishable under Sections 468, 506, 384 r/w 511 IPC, a case was registered against them.

¶29

Making his submission, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners are innocent and they were falsely implicated in the criminal case. Learned counsel states that the lst petitioner is the Director and Shareholder of Ridhima Estate Pvt. Ltd., which is engaged in providing Real Estate Marketing Services and the 2"a petitioner, who is the nephew of 1"t petitioner, is ,a1so

¶30

¶31

Dr.CSL,r Crl.P.NO.621 of 2022

¶32

associated urith the said Company. Respondent No. 1 is the Executive Director of a Company by name P.R.G. Buildcon India Private Limited. The l"t respondent is the relative of one Mr. Prabhakar Rao Gunaganti. The said Prabhakar Rao Gunaganti is the elder brother of the l"t petitioner. Prabha,kar Rao Gunaganti is the owner of about 30 Villas in Pristine Estates, a gated community The 2"d petitioner was approached for marketing and selling of those Villas and accordingly, the 2nd petitioner assigned his services through the 1"t petitioner's company. The 2na petitioner sold seven (7) Villas and for the services provided, an invoice for Rs. 3,64,O3,OOO/- was raised in the narne of Prabhakar Rao Gunaganti. Respondent No. 1 was contacted in respect of the said financial transaction upon the instructions of Prabhakar Rao Gunaganti. The invoice raised was sent to Respondent No. 1. On sending the said invoice which stands in the name of Prabhakar Rao Gunaganti, Respondent No. 1 raised dispute and gave a false complaint to Police. Learned counsel states that a bare perusal of the said complaint makes it. abundantly clear that no olfence is made out. Learned counsel also

¶33

Dr.CSL,l Crl.P.NO.621 of 2022

¶34

states that neither the ingredients of Sections 468, 506 and 384 IPC nor any other offences can be presumed to have been committed by the contents of the complaint itself and therefore, the petitioners approached this Court seeking to quash the proceedings.

¶35

6 Opposing the submission thus made, the learned counsel for the 1"t Respondent contends that the petitioners forwarded a mail intimidating the 1"t respondent and further, they, in their mail, also made a threatening statement of involving Income Tax Department and indeed, there are no transactions that went on between the petitioners and the 1"t respondent. However, a huge sum of more than Rs.3 crores was demanded from the l"t respondent and hence, aggrieved by the threatening mail that was forwarded, the l"t respondent gave a complaint to Police and hence, the proceedings a-re liable to be continued. The submission of the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor is that the invoice in question is created and the investigation is pending.

¶36

7 . The contents of the complaint are that the hrst respondent is working as an Executive Director with P.R.G.

¶37

¶38

DT.CSL,J Crl.P.NO.627 of 2022

¶39

Buildcon India Private Limited and Ridhima Priston Estates is the company involved in real estate business. The first petitioner, being the Director of Ridhima Estates Private Limited, is threatening the l"t respondent and is forcibly trying to extract Rs. 3,64,03,000/- from him. The 1"t respondent has not given any agreement or there are no transactions with Ridhima Estate Private Limited or his associates. On 13-11-2021, the 1"t respondent received a mail from the 1"t petitioner stating that he provided services to him for which he raised an invoice for an amount of Rs. 3,64,03,000/-. On receiving the said mail, a reply mail was sent about the illegal and fraudulent invoice raised by the 1"t petitioner and explaining him about nonentering into any agreement. The l"t petitioner prepared fraudulent invoice and thus, lega1 action has to be taken against him and a-lso against the 2'd petitioner fbr threatening him and planning to extract money from him.

¶40

The above averments as per the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners may form basis for initiation of any proceedings on civil side, but not for initiation of proceedings on criminal side. However,

Dr.CSL,l C .P.NO.621 ol 2022

¶45

making a submission that when investigation is not complete, it is impermissible for the High Court to quash the proceedings, learned counsel for the lst respondent relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case between the STATE OF ORISSA AND ANOTHER V/S SAROJ KUMAR SAHOOT, wherein the Court at Para 14 of the order held as follows:-

¶46

"14. It is to be noted that the inuestigation was not complete and at that stage it u.tas impermissible for^{the High Court} to^look into matertals, thp acceptabilitg of which is essentiallg a matter for tial. While exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., it is not permissible for the Court to act as if it u.tas a trtal Courl. Euen uthen charge is framed at that stage, the Court has to onlg prima facie be satisfied about the existence of sufjicient ground for proceeding against the accused". For that limited purpose, the court can eualuate matertal and^' documents on records but it cannot appreciate euidence. Th.e Court is not required to appreciate euidence to conclude whether the materials produced are sufficient or not for conuicting the accused. In Chand. Dhawan o.Jawdhar Lal2, it was obserued.

¶47

'1zOO51^{t3 Supremecourt} cases 540

¶48

'(19s21 : scc :rz

¶49

Dr.CSLt Crl.P.NO.621 of 2022

¶50

that uhen the mateials relied upon bg a party are required to be proued, no inference can be drawn on the basls of tltose mateials to conclud.e tte complaint to be unacceptable. The Court should. not act on annenlres to th_e petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C., uhich cannot be termed as euidence without being tested and proued."

¶51

9 . A peruszrl of the relevant material on record revea-ls the following facts:-

¶52

The first petitioner, on 01-11-2021, had sent a mail to the 1"t respondent and also to Prabhakar Rao Gunaganti which is as under:-

¶53

" Dear Sunil,

¶54

Praueen Kumar Guniganti informed me that Aou^{are taking care} of^Prabhakar Rao's personal accounts and I should send Aou this inuoice.

¶55

I do not haue your personal e-mail ID. So, Im sending it to gour companA ID..

¶56

-Rauinder Rao G.'

¶57

For the said mail, a reply mail was sent by the 1"t respondent on 05-11-202I which reads as under:-

¶58

,"'

¶59

¶60

Dr.CSL,t crl.P.NO.621 of 2022

¶61

Mr.G.Rauinder Rao

¶62

Ridhima Estales Priuate Limited

¶63

I am surpised to receiue claims for an amount of Rs.36,4O3,OOO for seruice charges. Dr.G.Prabhakar Rao or me haue neuer entered into any agreement eitler with G. Praueen Kumar or Vou. Hence, ratsing a tax inuoice fraudulently is illegal and arbitrartly. So, gou uith.d.raw tax inuoice u.tith immediate effect or oth.erwise- we will be forced to take necessary action in this regard and gou will be liable for ang consequences.

¶64

B.Sunil."

¶65

The 1"t petitioner thereafter, i.e. on 07-ll-2O21, l:ras

¶66

sent another mail which reads as follows:-

¶67

"Dear Sunil Bontha,

¶68

Please go through my first e-mail and iruuoice.

¶69

Did I euer said that ute haue prouided seruice to Aou,^{or that ue sold gour Villas in Pistine. I sent tle} inuoice to you because Praueen Kumar told me that gou take care of accounts of Dr.Guniganti Prabhakar Rao.

¶70

Yes, we do haue aft agreement with the owner of the Villas and u.te haue enough documentation and

¶71

¶72

¶73

DT.CSL,J Crl.P.NO.621 of 2022

¶74

maA euen some uoice recordings uith you to proue our point and inuoice.

¶75

If gou are still not satisfied, please proceed uith legal action. Please make Income Tax Dept a partg in this matter. IT Dept. will surelg appreciate to see hau,t muclt cash did Aou collect on behalf of the outner from the Villa purchasers.

¶76

-Rauinder Rao G."

¶77

1 1. When the contents of the complaint and the averments in the aforementioned mails are gone through, this Court finds justilication in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the dispute is more civil in nature. In the last mentioned mai1, i.e. the mail dated 07-11-2021, the l"t petitioner has only requested to make Income Tax Department a party to the matter and also stated that Income Tax Department will surely appreciate to see how much cash was collected on behalf of the owner from the Vi1la purchasers. This does not mean that the l"t respondent was threatened in the name of Income Tax Department.

¶78

¶79

or.cSL,l Crl.P.NO.621^{of 2022}

¶80

Law is^{more than well settiedthat when the matter rs} essentially^{of civil nature, a clock of criminaloffence should} not be given.^{Also, it is time and again reiteratedthat the} crimina,l^{proceedings should not form a short cut method} for other^{remedies,more particularly' civil remediesthat} are available^{under law'Also, in the case betweenthe} State of Haryana^{Vs. Bhajan Lal3, the Hon'ble Apex Court} has clearly^{held that wherethe allegationsmade in the} First Information^{Report or the complaint'even if they are} taken at their^{face value, does not pima../acie constitute} any offence,^{the Court is well empowered to quash the} proceedings^{exercisingpower granted under Section 482} Cr.P.C.

¶81

In the^{case on hand, as earlier discussed'this Court} finds that the^{dispute is more civil in nature 'The contents} of the complaint^{itself goes to show that basing on a-n} invoice raised, a mail^{was sent requestingthe first} respondent to^{pay certain amount' In case the 1"t} respondent is not^{at liabilityto pay the said amount'he} has to indicate his^{reasons and deny paymentof amount'}

¶82

'^{tggzscc (crt.)+zo}

¶83

1,2

¶84

, r,. o. * o. u r r'Ji'rto'i!, But initiation of criminal proceedings is undesirable. Further, as rightly submitted by the rearned counser for the petitioners, the contents of the compiaint does not make out atleast a prima facie case for initiation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners.

¶85

Therefore, this Court is of the view that paving way to continue the proceedings would certainly amount to abuse of process of law. Hence this Court considers desirable to quash the proceedings.

¶86

Resulteintly, the Criminal petition is allowed. The proceedings that are initiated against the petitioners in Crime No. 72O of 2O2l of Raidurgam police Station, a-re hereby quashed.

¶87

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

¶88

//TRUE COPY//

¶89

One Fair Copy to the Hon,ble Dr. Justice Chillakur Sumalatha (For Her Lordships Kind perusal) To,

¶90

SD/- B. SAryAVATHI DEFUTY REGISTRAR

¶91

'' ll'

¶92

SECTION OFFICER

¶93

The XVI Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendra nagar

¶94

The SHO, Raidurgam police Station, Cyberabad, RR Dist. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad [OUT]

¶95

4 One CC to M/s. T. S ANIRUDH REDDY, Advocate tOpUCj

¶96

E One CC to M/s. AVTNASH DESAT Advocate tOpUCI

¶97

1. One 11 L.R. CooiesCC to M/s. Khaia Vizarath Ali, Advocate tOpUCl ' ]ffir::fl,""t-tfic;tav,^{Unionof lndia, Ministry of Law,Justice and company} t Tetangana Advocates Association Library, High Court

¶98

ffia?"".Tlif;,

¶99

10.Two CD Codies 1 1 . One Spare Copy BN +-

I I

HIGH COURT

DATED:1310912022

ORDER