Allowed

K.Srinivasa Raju v. state of telangana

Telangana HC7 Jun 2022CRLRC/721/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal revision filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C against the trial court's dismissal of an application for discharge. The Court held there was no sufficient ground to frame charges for theft, cheating, and breach of trust due to lack of specific details regarding time, place, and property involved.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dismissing discharge application set aside; Criminal Revision allowed; Petitioner discharged.

K.Srinivasa Raju Vs state of telangana — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

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

¶2

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO:7 21 0F 2018

¶6

Criminal Revision Case filed Under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C against the Judgment dated. 09.02.2018^passedin Crl.MP.No.609 of^{2018 in S.R.No.2965 of} 2017 in C.C. No.'l085 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the^{XIV Additional Chief} Metropolitan Magistrate, at Hydedrabad.

¶7

Between:

¶8

K. Srinivasa Raju, S/o. K.R.S.S. Varma, R/o. Flat No. 301,^{Sudha Towers,} Bhgyanagar Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad.

¶9

... Petitione r/Acc u sed No.1

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of telangana, represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court, at Hyderabad.

¶12

...Respondent

¶13

2 B. Uma Devi, W/o. V.V. Satyanarayana, Occ: Director,^Rl/o. M/s Pioneer^Drip Systems Private Limited, Flat No. 202, Coral^{Treasure Apartment.,} Gurumurthy Lane., Begmpet, Hyderabad.

¶14

...Respondents/Complainant

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 2018

¶16

Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed in support of the Criminal Revision^{Case,the High Court may} be pleased to stay all further^{proceedings including appearance of the} Petitio nersi accused No. 01 in C.C.No. 1085 of 2016 on^the file^{of the XIV} Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad,^{pending disposalof the Crl. RC.,} Before this Hon'ble Court.

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶18

Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C^praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to extend the stay granted in l.A.No.2 ol 2021 in C?1.R.C.No.721 of 2018, dated 22-02-2021 .

¶19

lA NO: 2 OF 2021

¶20

Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the^grounds filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to extend the stay granted in lA No.'1 of 2020 in Crl.R.C. No.721 of 2018 dated: 0910412021 .

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT. K. HEMALATHA FOR SRI S. DUSHYANTH REDDY

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (TS)

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI P. RAVI SHANKER

¶24

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶25

I IOYRI-Ii SRI,IT]S'I'ICI.] A.SANTI{OSII RT]DI)Y

¶26

CRl..R.C.No.72l of 201 8

¶27

ORI)ER:

¶28

'l-his Criminal Rcvision Case is flled ac.ainst the oldcr in Crl.M.P.No.609 ol 2008 in C.C.No. l085 ol 20 l6 datcd 09.02.20 l8 on tl.re Illc o1' XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistratc, Ilyderabad whcrein thc petition t-ilcd for discharge undcr Section 2i9 Cr.P.C. lbr the ollences punishable under Sections 381, 408 and 420 IPC was dismissed.

¶29

The second respondent is the Director of the Company. The petitioner/A- I was entrusted in duties l'or day to day affairs of the company and A-2 uscd to assist A- l . Both the accused are responsible lbr all the wear and tear o1' the second respondent's products and they havc to account lor all thc sales and supplies rnade by thern.^'l'he accused with dishonest and malafide inlention approached the second respondcnt and induced to take A-l to China. Since he was discharging his duties ol rnarketing of computer periphcrals and believing the petitioner, she had taken hirn to China fbr lour timcs and cntered into agrccrnent with M/s.'l'CL cornpany and undertook task of taking dealcrship to market their products in

¶30

¶31

ASR,J Crl Rc 721_ 2018

¶32

Andhra Pradesh as well as in lndia by spencling huge amounts. During the course of association with the accLlsed, the second respondent had placed lot of trust on him and invested more than Rs.50.00 lakhs towards for purchase of computers and prornotional expenses. A-l and A-2 failed to attend their job responsibi lities and they have sent resignations through SMS through mobile phone. 3. A case in Crime No.650 of 200g, panjagutta police Station was registered on 31.07.2008 against the petitioner and another and investigated for the ot-fences punishable under Sections 3gl.40g and 420\PC.

¶33

During the crime stage, the proceedings against A_2 was quashed by this Court in Crl.p.No.4g36 of 2009 vide orders date<l 20.10.2011. Alter completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the petitioner/A- I .

¶34

The petitioner filed application under Section 239 Cr.p.C.to discharge him for the alleged offences contending that he has resigned from the company on 03.0g.2007 and complaint was lodged on 31.07.2008. There was about one year gap from the date of resignation and complaint lodged by the second respondent. lhe private complaint was filed with an intention to avoid salary ol the

¶35

ASR,J Crl Rc 72i 2018

¶36

petitioner and as a counter blast to the case filed by the A-2 belorc the

¶37

Labour Coun, the present case is filed againsl the accused.

¶38

It is the case of the peritioner that the allegations of the cornplaint/FlR and statcrncnts of the wiLnesses do not prima facie rnakc out ar-ry ollence and there is no ntaterial to fi'ame charge against him and he is entitlcd to be discharged.

¶39

Learned XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ill,dcrabad having considered the contentions of both sides and considering the rxaterial record dismissed the application through in-rpugned order. Aggrieved by the san-re, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed.

¶40

Learned counsel for the petitioner subrnitted that the petitioner along with other accused had resigned from the company on 03.08.2007 and the present complaint was filed on 31.07.2008 i.e. alter one year from the date of resignation. l,earned counsel further submitted that as a counter blast to the case filed bv A-2 befbre the I-abour Court, the present case is filed. Learned counsel lurther submitted that there is no prinra facie naterial to frarne the clrarges lor the alleged oft-ences against the petitioner

¶41

¶42

ASR,J Crl Rc_721 2O18

¶43

9 Heard the Iearned Assistant public prosecutor on behalf of respondcnt No. l -State.

¶44

Learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that there is prima facie material to frame charges against the petitioner for the alleged offences and considering the same, the trial Court has rightly d ism issed the application.

¶45

I 1. (i) Whether the impugned order is illegal or suflers liom any inflrmities and needs interference of this Courr?

¶46

ii) Whether the pctirioner is entitled to be discharged olthe alleged offtnccs?

¶47

It is not in dispute that the petitioner and A_2 had informed about their resignations to the second respondent on 03.0g.2007. It appears from the material on record that the second respondent had sent letter for the first rime to the accused on 23.0g.2007 alleging that they have damaged computer parts without permission of the second respondent and reply was sent by the petitioner on 29.0g.2007. Then the second respondent again sent a letter on 31.10.2007 and copy of the reply was issued by the petitioner on 02.1 l.2OO7.

¶48

I 3. A perusal of the complaint would reveal that the petitioner and A-2 have not submittecl proper resignation and had not handed over the charge and clarif-red the accounts. Admirtedll,, the complaint

¶49

)

¶50

ASR,J Crl,Rc_721 2018

¶51

was lodged on 31.07.2008 after about one year from the date ol submitting their resignations on 03.08.2007

¶52

Sectiorr 239 Cr.P.C. stipulates the Magistrate shall discharge the accused recording reasons, if after considering the material on record examining the accused, if necessary and hearing the arguments ol'both sides, he thinks that charges against him are groundless. i.e either there is no legal evidence or that f-acts do not make out any of-fence at all.

¶53

I 5. Keeping in view of the above provision, let me consider whether there are sufflcient grounds in the charge sheet, FllVcornplaint and the statements of the witnesses to frame the charges against the petitioner for the alleged offences.

¶54

1'he alleged charges are lramed under Sections 381, 408 and 420 tPC.

¶55

As per the allegations in the present complaint the petitioner was in-charge ofday to day affairs of the company. It is also alleged that the second respondent ir-rvested more than Rs.50.00 lakhs for purchase of computers. It is alleged that the petitioner has committed theft ol computer peripherals like processors, Ram, hard disk and other internal parts o1'the cornputer thereby rendering the cornputers

¶56

¶57

ASR,J Crl-Rc-721_2018

¶58

unfit for selling in market. As a result, the second respondent had sustained loss to a tune of Rs.30.00 Iakhs. It is also a,lleged that the petitioner has committed cheating and breach of trust.

¶59

I 8. The alregations of the compraint would revear that the petitioner has committed theft of key computer and other intemal pams of the computer. In the notice dated 23.0g.2007 sent by rhe second respondent there is said no allegation except stating that the petitioner has reft the organization along with other accused and he was entrusted with responsibility to look after the entire affairs of the company' He has not informed about the discrepancies in the stocks and also purchases and breached the trust and confldence. As far as criminal cases are concerned, date, time of offence and particulars of the properly cornmitted theft, if any are the basic requirements for a criminal Court to frame a charge and unless these basic essentials ol time, place and things stolen are given, it is clear that the ingredients of oft'ence prima facie cannot be said to have been made out.

¶60

[t is not in dispute that when an employee of a company commits theft of property, which he was in possession before leaving services, sorne difficulty and hardship will be there lor a master to verify the same. But said verification has to be done and as earlv as

¶61

ASR,.J Crl Rc 721-2018

¶62

¶63

possible and within a reasonable tirne. Apart lrom this, the particulars of oftlcer, who made the verification and when such verilication has been done and what is the property that was missing has to bc lurnished as carly as possible. The complaint must be clear on what evidence and on what basis, the allegations are^{lnade. Thus,} there must be prina facie case, otherwise if an ernployee^demands payment ol due u'ages, bonus and other statutory dues from the employer, there is every possibility ol employer falsely^implicating hinr in a crirninal case alleging commission of theft etc.,^without any basis. ln this case also, the accused No.2 has^{alreadyapproached the} authoritv under thc Payrrent of Wages Act and clainred^certajn amounts frorn the second respondent-company^{and a notice} to^the second respondent was sent to appear before the^said authority.^It appcars the second respondent lodged a conrplaint about^threeand hall rnonths thereafler.^'l'hc contents of the charge-sheet, FIR/cornplaint and the statements of the^witnesses do^{not attractany} of the ingredients of the offences under Sections^{381,408 and 420} IPC.

¶64

Coming to the charge under Section 381 IPC as^discussed above, there are no specific details ofdate,^{tirne, place and the things}

¶65

¶66

ASR,J Crl_Rc 721_2018

¶67

stolen are not given and as such it is clear that the ingredients of Section 381 IpC are not attracled. The ingredients of oflence punishable under Section 40g IpC, there is no prima facie material to show that on what property he was made in charge and the details of entrustment are missing and he committed breach and details have not been properly mentioned and no sufficient ground to frame charge for the said offence.

¶68

Coming to section 420 IpC, the essential ingredients of the offence are offence of cheating are as follows:_

¶69

i) deception of a person either by making a false or misleading representation or by dishonest concealmenfor by any other act or omission; ii) fraudulent or dishonest inducement of that person to either deliver any p.opcrty or.to.consent to the retentiori thereot by uny person or to intentionally induce that person so a"""iu",i ro do or so deceived: and omit ro.do anything which he woutd not a" ", "riiji r* were nor iii) such act or omission, causing or is Iikely ro cause damage or harm to that person in body. mind, ."pu,u,ion"o, p.op"r,y.

¶70

The ailegations in the charge sheet or in the complainr/F.l.R. and the statement of the second respondent, there are no ingredients of any kind to frame the charge for rhe alleged olfence under Section 420 II'C

¶71

¶72

ASR,J Crl_Rc_721-2018

¶73

l I

¶74

In view of the above, after going through the contents oF charge-sheet, FlR/complaint and the statements of witnesses and perusal of subrnissions ol both counsel, this Court is of the view that there is no sufflcicnt ground for proceeding against the accused and to frame the charges against the petitioner lor the alleged offences. 'Iherefore, dismissal ol application filed for discharge by the trial Court is illegal and warrants interlerence by this Court by allowing the revision petition to avoid illegality and miscarriage ofjustice.

¶75

In view of the foregoing discussion, the impugned order is liable to be set aside

¶76

In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. The impugned order dared 09.02.201g is liable ro be ser aside and rhe sarne is, accordingly, set aside and consequently Crl.M.p.No.609 ol 2018 in C.C.No. 1085 ol20l6 on the file olthe XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Flyderabad filed by the petirioner under Section 239 Cr.p.C., is allowed and the petitioner is discharged. Pending miscellaneous petirions, ifany, stand closed.

¶77

¶78

To,

¶79

SD/-A.V,S.S.C.S.M.SARMA DEPUTY REGIST ,TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

¶80

¶81

1 The XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Hyderabad (With record s)

¶82

2 The Station House Officer, panjagutta police Station, Hyderabad District.

¶83

3 Two CCs to the Public prosecutor, Hlgh Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

¶84

R 9n" 99 !o 9r! !.^{Dushyanth Reddy,Advocate} [opUC] One CC to Sri^p. Ravi Shanker, edvocate [Op0C1

¶85

Two CD Copies 7. One Spare Copy

MIMK SB tt!-

HIGH COURT

DATED:2410612022

ORDER

CRLRC.No.721 of 2018

{ e S TA (a
(
c
z
c,)-) 1 2 JUL 2022
*
t
.^rr90
PAT

¶92

ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE

¶93

K.Srinivasa Raju v. state of telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Srinivasa Raju 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B.Anuna Kumari Vs the State of Telangana.,Rep.,Pp and Another

Air Liquide Engineering India PVT.LTD.(A1) Newdelhi and 3 Ors. Vs State of Telangana, Rep Pp and Anr.

K. Sathaiah Vs Korpuri Saritha

R.Purushothama Chary, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

G.v.Laxmikantha Rao, Karimnagar (Manddt) and 2 Othrs., Vs State of Ap., Rep. Sho, 1 Town Ps., and Anr.

K. Krishna Veni Vs State of Telangana