Allowed

N.Sekhar Rao, Warangal., v. State of Ap., Rep. by Pp. and Anr.

Telangana HC1 Sept 2022CRLP/6634/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings for cheating and criminal breach of trust. The Court held that since the accused did not entrust the money,Section 420 IPC was not attracted and the complaint was liable to be quashed.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings in Crime No. 298/2013 pending before Subedari Hanamkonda Police Station, Warangal District, are quashed.

N.Sekhar Rao, Warangal., Vs State of Ap., Rep. by Pp… — Cheating and Forgery | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAO

¶3

THURSDAY ,THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6634 OF 2013

¶7

Between:

¶8

N.SEKHAR RAO, WARANGAL.,, S/o. Gopal Rao, Advocate, R/o. H.No. 2-5-450, Besides Adalath, Hanamkonda, Warangal District.

¶9

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶10

AND

¶11

STATE OF AP., REP. BY PP. AND ANR.,, rept. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.

¶12

Kalta Raji Reddy, S/o. Narasimha Reddy, Police Constable, R/o. H.No 2-B584/4, lndra Nagar, Hanamkonda, Warangal District.

¶13

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS

¶14

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 tob call for the records relating to Crime No. 298 of 2013 on the fiel of the Police Station, Subedari, Hanamkonda, Warangal District and quash the proceedings in Crime no 298 of 2013.

¶15

LA. NO: 1 OF 2013(CRLPMP. NO:6034 OF 2013)

¶16

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 appearance of the petitioner in Crime No. 298 of 2013 on the fiel of the Police Station, Subedari. Hanamkonda, Warangal District, pending the disposal of the above criminal petition.

¶17

This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri A PRABHAKAR RAO ,Advocate for the Petitioner and the Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri A. RAGHU RAMA AURAVA Advocate for the Respondent No.

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

THE H'^INOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SUF:E}NDER

¶20

Q! $INAL PETITION No. 6634,CF l4).1.3

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

This Cri ninal Petition under Section 482 o1' the Cocle of Criminal Proc ,lure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.'), is l1l:d seeking to quash thc prr :eedings in Crime No.29B/20 13, preeding on the file of Subeda i Hanamkonda Police Station, W:tra:rgztl District. The petitioner herein is accused in the said crrnr,:. The offences alleged agains him are under Sections 420, 406, 29O and 506 of Indian Pene, Clode.

¶23

Heard tht learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Pub ic Prosecutor for the responrients. Perused the record.

¶24

A compl^jnt was filed by the 2.d respondent u'ith Subedari Police stating hat he gave an amount of Rs. 1,80,t100/- to one Thomos Redcl- that for not returning the said .1:lrount he filed a suit in OS. io.644 of 2Ol1 and obtained atrzrchment order against Taver; Vehicle bearing No.AP 36 X 2lt)3 belonging to the said Tho ras Recldy. While the things s,-oo I t hus, one Maraboina SeL, rmaiah gave an advance amollnt to purchase the said vehicle rnd he introduced this petitiorrer r,r'ho is an

¶25

¶26

Advocate stating that the amount of Rs. 1,80,0O0/- is with him and hd would give the said amount after compromise is arrived at in the Court in between th,e defacto complainant and Thomos Reddy. Thereafter the case was compromised in between the 2"a respondent/complainant and Thomos Reddy and the 2"d respondent approached the petitioner who gave an amount of Rs. I Iakh and kept on postponing for repaying the balance amount of Rs.8O,0OO/-. When confronted, the petitioner allegedly threatened stating that he will complain and would see that the 2",1 respondent's services would be .^terminated. Aggrieved by the same, the 2"d respondent has filed the present complaint.

¶27

As seen from the averments in the complaint, the amount was entrusted by one Maraboina Sammaiah. The said Sammaial-r has not made any complaint stating that the petitioner had misappropriated the said amount. When the amount was admittedly given by the said Sammaiah, question of Criminal mis-appropriation does not arise, as the said entrustment was not by this petitioner. Secondly, the ingredients of Section 42O of IPC are also not attracted. Even according to the compl:rint there was no mis-representation

¶28

¶29

that u,'as mad by this petitioner to the 2"d re scondent. It u,as the said Sar raiah u,ho had stated that he h:rs given the money to this. petitior-rer. When there is no m is- rr.'prcsentation by this petit.i rner and pursuant to such mis r,.rpresentation when there ir no delivery of any property, thr: ingredients of Section 42O r re lacking for which reason, the ,:omplaint filed against the pt .itioner is liable to be quashed.

¶30

Accordir gly, the Criminal Petition is allo,.ved and the proceedings r Crime No.298/2013, penclir.rg on the file of Subedari Ha: amkonda Police Station, Warangitl District, are quashed.

¶31

Miscella reous Petitions, pending il' an5', shall stand

¶32

closecl

¶33

SDr- G. SIREESHA ArSr;r S rAt{T REGt$TRAR //TRUE COPY// IiECTION OFFICER

¶34

To,

¶35

lV Addl. Judic ll^'lst Class Magistrate At Warangal District

¶36

SHO, Subeda i Police Station, Hanumakonda Warangal Urban Dist

¶37

Two CCs to tl'-. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P , Hyderabad 4 One CC to Si ll. A PRABHAKAR RAO Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to SF l. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (TG) Advocate [()PUC]

¶38

Two CD Copi, s

¶39

One Spare Cr py

o.,rf

HIGH COURT

KS,J

DATED:01109 2022

ORDER

::=:<br>\a SiAf€
.+'
l/. )
(,Y
,r,) I i] ilil\l 2$71

¶47

CRLP.No.663 + ot 2013

¶48

CRIMINAL P[ TITION !S ALLOWED

¶49

0
lb

N.Sekhar Rao, Warangal., v. State of Ap., Rep. by Pp. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Sekhar Rao, Warangal., v. State of Ap., Rep. by Pp. and Anr.

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

Lenkala Andalamma, Nalgonda., Vs Bhavanath Ramulu, Nalgonda and Anr, Rep. Pp.

Rajesh Kumar, and 5 Others, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd., and Another

K.Srinivas , Chinna and Another Vs the State of A.P.

Sri.Mohd.Khaled Shareef Vs The District Inspector

Sohrabh Agarwal and 6 Others Vs the State of A.P. and Another

V.v.Rajesh Vs State of a.P., Rep. by P.P., Hyd. and Anr.