Dismissed

T.Hari Prasad Rao and Anr. v. the State of Telangana and Another

Telangana HC6 Jun 2023CRLP/6405/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed a criminal petition seeking quashing of judgments dismissing a private complaint. The Court held the complaint was civil in nature regarding tenancy disputes and municipal notices. Essential ingredients of cheating were not made out. Citadel confirmed lower courts' findings.

What did the court decide?

Criminal petition dismissed confirming orders of Revision Court; no further revision maintained.

T.Hari Prasad Rao and Anr. Vs the State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

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

¶2

TUESDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE G,ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6405 OF 2016

¶6

Between:

¶7

T.Hari Prasad Rao, S/o.Narasimha Rao Aged 48^years

¶8

Smt.Thota Prasanna Lakshmi, Wo.T.Hari Prakash^{RaoAged42 yearsBoth} are Fi/o.16-9-640/4/5, Opp. Agricultural Office, Old^{Malakpet,Hyderabad.}

¶9

...PETITIONERS/COMPLAINANTS

¶10

AND

¶11

'1. The State Of Telangana, through Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad.

¶12

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶13

Smt. K.S.Vani, W/o.K.Narasimha Raju, Aged 53^{years R/o.10710Walnutlndu} Fortune Fields, Phase-13 KPHB colony, Hyderabad

¶14

And also D/o. P. Ramakrishnam Raju, Retired Judge,^{High Court of A.P.}

¶15

...RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT

¶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 set aside the Judgment in Crl.R.P.^No.241 of^{2015 as well as} SR.No.679 of 2013 in the interest of Justice and^{remandthe matter to the Lower} Court for adjudication in the interest of Justice.

¶17

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon^{perusingthe Memorandum of} Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon^{hearing the argumentsof Sri N.C.DAS,} Advocate for the Petitioners and Assistant Public^{Prosecutoron behalf of the} Respondent No.^'l and of Sri LAKSHMI SHANKAR^{RAYAPUREDDY, Advocatefor} the Respondent No. 2

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

HON'BLE SM T. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAV,TIITFTY

¶20

Crl.P.No.6405 OF 2016

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

Tl-ris^t- ri minal Petitior-r is filed to s('t rrsid,: thc judgnrent ;n C^{-1.R.P.No.241} ol 2015 dated 04.0 1.12016, on thc lile^,rf [4e lropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderatra 1 as u,erll as ir.r S.R No 673 of 2013 dated 06.08.2015, on tre lile of VII AdditiorL Ll Chiel Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampall-r', Hvde rabad rr nrl Lo remand the matter to the Cor.rrt Delou, for adjuclicat o^-r.

¶23

F or thr sial<e of convenience, the pa;'tic s htrrein are arrzq'ed as tt e./ are arrayed in the original cornplaint Thc pe'titionr:rs a: e complainants

¶24

As stat rcl supra, this quash petition is fil,:d against thc judemer-t rn Crl.R.P.No.24 1 of 2O15 on'-he file of Metropolitarr Sessions Judge, Hyderabzu[, ]atecl O.+.01.2()i(t t nC to remand the matter to the Courrt ltelorv for adjr-Ldi,::t ir,n o1 the criminal complarnt q'h ich u,as dismissed tr the Court below under Section 203 ol Cr.P.C. Init ialll', a private complaint wzrs filr:cl blr the

¶25

)

¶26

G,t(. I Cr l. l'..'o.6^J 0 5 ol^{2t) l6}

¶27

petitioners. The brief facts^{culled out of the complaintare} that the accused is^{the iandlady and the complainant is} the tenant of the accused.^{The complainant after taking} premises on lease, the accused^{allegedto havc given an} advertisement for letting^{out the same premises,for whicl-t} GHMC issued a notices^{both to the complainantand the} accused asking them^{to remove the canteenset up in the} said premises within²⁴ hours^{and the said notices u'ere} issued on different narnes.^{Thereafter,the M unicipal} authorities have demolished^{the canteen, due to whichthe} business of the complainant^{got effected and the said} demolition was done^{at the instance of the accused in} order to close the business.^{Further, the accused did not} allow the complainant^{to runbusiness as perthe} agreement. The complaint^{alleged to have given by the} accused does not^{show her signature and the signatureon} the complaint and^{the signature on the agreement are} different, which shows^{that the accused masterminded} the complaint using^{the signature of the 3'a parties'}

¶28

¶29

(;.t( ,.l { rl.P '',.61t 5 r{ 2t)t6

¶30

Tite' tr':il (tourt aftcr considering the elrlt.e milteriirl or1 r(.co^-cl h,: s .ome to :r conclusion that the c.ase, is < ivil in natllrc,tn(1 ( is,missed the compiaint under_ Seclicrn !103 of Cr.P.C. AiJe. r-l;t the sarne, the complainart lLa( 1>re-erred a revisior-r.^'! tr. Revision Court after considerinq tlre r_,ntir.e materizrl on e,:ord ancl also the rival contentions c f the partics lras rl s;nissecl thc revision. Being aegrievr:,1 by the same. tlre pr )sent quash petition is filed seelcltil t,) set aside th(. ordt r:; in revision petition No.24l120lE .

¶31

Ileirrd I tr leartrerl counsel for the petitionr:rs ancl learned counrel for thc 2",r respondent and perur;ed the record

¶32

It i-s Lu-g( d b.y the learned counsel for the p(:titiolters that the Rei,is o-r Court as rveil as the trial Cour.r has to consider ther r e:.ision" of the Apex Court while rleating with the c.onrp aints and the lou,er Courts orrght rrot have dismissed the c,rnrplainl as it is civil in nature. It. is further cor-tt€,n( led that after gir.ing the premises rr rr,nt, the accused las advertised through eleclronic rneCia about the sal: r f the propertv, rvhich clearly dis<:lor;es that

¶33

¶34

¶35

G'l( I Crl. l'.\o.6,105 oJ^{)01 6}

¶36

thc landlady^{cheated the complair-Iemt/tenant' Itis} further contended^{by the learned counsel that the sworn} statement of^{the accusedclearly establishes that the} complaint is criminal^{in nature which includesthe offence} under Section^{42O Cr.P.Ci.e., for cheating'Due to non-} payment of water^{bill to the waterworks department lor} more thafl^{2O years, the complainant/petitionerhas faced} lot of difficulties^{and electricilybills were alsoissued} under diflerent^{house numbers' Al1 these facts shallbc} deemed to be cheating.^{Therefore,prayed to remand the} matter to the trial^{Court for consideration'}

¶37

In suPPort of^{his contentlons,he relied uPon the} judgment in Crl.P.No.3742^{of 2O2I,whricl:rreadsas}

¶38

under:-

¶39

"lt is well settled^{law that when a complaint} dis.lo=ed commission^{of cognizableoffence' it is} within the^{competence of the Magistrateto} forward the^{said complaintto the police under} b."tio.t 156(3)^{Cr. P.C to investigate and file} ..po.a No^' doubt,^{the Magistrate} 1"o^.:: .-oo*.r.d to^{conduct enquiry underSection- 2O2} Cr.i'.C and^{recordthe sworn statement ol the} and other^{witnessesif any and take} "o-pi"r""", .og.iir""".^{of the case. But, the grievanceof the} ".?iai."..^{is that as the case is relatingto t he} irct.. of cheating,^{punishable underSection 42O} oi rpc, it^{would biconducive to justice if the} ptti." i.ru."tigates^{the case' Therefore' when the}

¶40

¶41

G.t( ..l ( rl.l' .\o.bJt'5 oJ 2l)16

¶42

('orrrI i:, r'rnpout:rtcl un(lcr Se(tiorl 1l16{ 3) l]r.P.J lO c,rrj.rr Ii,r- rve^qt -'rr 0n befbrc t:rkinr. cr,gntz rc'c ol- tlr' cirse, tirc tr-izrl Court ougllt Lo ril\e lon'.r: ,1r'd tl're siri<l complaint un(lcr Sc,. tio1 5(r(:i^r-lr.P.C 1o Llrt' police 1o investillat^j ani :,Lrllrrl I^{-cl)ort '[his} urruld also save th,: t n e of t lr(' tr r rl C{)urt.

¶43

r LIrc^jrrdln'rt'nt ol rhc Apex Corrrt n:li,:.1 bi llrc pt tilioner belirrc thc trial Cor-rrt, irr Madhrio r. Sltalc )l Mrrharashtra, thc Apex Court lrelrl irr part I .J zLs^'c.rllou,s:

¶44

When a rnagistrate reccives I ccrnl)laint I e s nrrt bound to trrkc cognizzrnce if^r he lact; zrllcl;er in the compl:rinr disclose the,tontrnission ol an oflcnce. T1-rr: magistrate has discrct orr in t')e rrr ltl(:r. II on :r r(':lding of the complai'rt, h,r l-ir-rcl s llL:rl the allt'gzrtions therein disckrs,: lr cogni:z rt: Ic offen(]e alrcl the forwarding c I thc c:ornpir rir Lt to thc policc for investigation -.Lr Lde^- Scctir-, r 156r(3) rvill bc conducive to .ius[ic: antl s:rve l rr valuable tirne of the magistr:rte 1-onr lrcing'*rsti:d in enquiring into a mattet u'hic I wa:i primar ilr. tl're rlutv o1- lhe police to inv,:stiga-e h<r u ill 1-.r ustified ir-r :rdopting tltat corrrse irs arL alternr ti re to tal(ing cognizance of the o'lt:nct itscll."

¶45

Hc alsr relied on the judgment of the Apcx^rJourt

¶46

reporlc<i it^. lteuender Kumar Singla o. Baldeu .Krishan

¶47

Singlal , whe r< in it is held as under:-

¶48

I tl^()r( .r to apprecizrte Lhe rival subnrissio:rs, it u'ould l;e necessan/ to consider on the bi rckgr rr-rncl of the factual position as to whet her ol f-encr-' p,rnishablc undcr Section 42O IPC is .trrrde out. Sr: 'tion 420 clcals with certain spe:ilied cl:rsse s ,rl chcatrng. It deals with thc r:a ses w lerell ,, the dcceivcd person is clishor er;tlv in<1u,:e r L to dcliver an\r property to any pcrson or to mrrk ', altcr or destroy, the whole or irnl 1>iLr'. of

'lzoosio^{s,:c ts}

:*.-.

G.1( . ,l Crl, l',No.6105^{o.[2 0 I 6}

¶53

er verluablc security^{or anvthil-lg which is signedor} sealed and which is^capable of^{beingconvertcd} into a valuable^{se curi[y. Section4 15 defines} "cheating". The said provision rcquires,⁽ⁱ⁾ deccption of atty^{person (ii) whereby fraudulently} or dishonestly inducing^{that person to deliverany} property to any person or to consent that^any pcrson shall rctain any^propcrtY or⁽ⁱⁱⁱ⁾ intcntionally inducing that^{person to do or omit to} do anything which^{he wouldnot do or omit if he} wcre not so deceived, and^{whichact or omission} causes or is likely to^{cause damage or harm to} that^person in body,^{mind, reputationor property.} Deception ol any^{personis commonto the second} and third requirements^{of the provision. The said} requirements are alternative to^{each other and} this is madc signilicantly clear^{by use of} disjunctive conjunction^{'or'. The definition of the} offence of cheating embraces^{some cases in which} no transfer of^properLy is^{occasionedby the} deccption and some in^{which no transferoccurs'} Deccption is the^{quintessenceof the offence. The} csscntial ingredients^{to attract Section 42O ate:(11} cheating;⁽ⁱⁱ⁾ dishonest^{inducement todeliver} property or to make, alter or destroY any^valuable sccurity or anything^{which is sealedor signed or} is capable of being^{converted into avaluable} securiry and the^{(iii) mens rea of the accusedat} the time of making^{the inducement.The makingof} a false representation^{is one of the ingredients for} the offence of cheating^{under Section420. (See} Bashirbhai Mohamedbhai^{v. State of Bombay."}

¶54

9 The above said^{judgments do notapply tothe} present facts arld circumstances^{of the case, as essential} ingredients of^{Section 42OCr.P.C do not attract even after} going through the contents^{of the complaint'}

¶55

¶56

(;t(,.t

¶57

(.1 1,..\ t,.iJ0i tl ,0ft,

¶58

On thr rl1 her hanc.l, learne cl corrnsr:l for tlrr:. respond( nts (.ontende(j that thc both thr Courts concurrclrtlv girvr_. finclings tl-rat thc matr er is civil in naturc ancl th :r.efitre, dismtssed the complatnt ar rl prtved not to tnterfe| rvtlh the orders of the Revision C()rrt.t.

¶59

1 1. In strpp rrt of his contentions, he r.elied ,)n the judgmen t rl1' t ho Apex Cotrrt rcportcd in Mehrn<tod, tJl Rehman vs. )Chazir Mohammad Tfund.a And. ,)l:hers2, wherein it is ht Ic as ur-rder:_

¶60

" Tht: s;tr: rs taken br. the Magistrate undcr So( 11ln I 9O(1)(a; o' CrpC foilon,t-ct UIIS".l,o.,-id.+,ri'i,,.r,c-l should rr [r:ct thal Lhc Magistrate has applrcj Lis mincl to L.hc facts :rncl the_ statements ,,.,.1 t. i" srrtisfieC h rr rhere is gr,)und [or proceedirrg ,r. h.. ln ute .m; trer by askirrg the person againit wllom ttr(' Jr()lat,rrr ol law is llrged. to ,ppaua l,eft,re tlre courl. '[ rt satisfactiort on the ground litr proceeiin j ,r.ould mean tltat the facts allegled in t lLe comlrlarnt r'ould constitute an offence, jncl rv_rcn considere.r I along \a,ith the statements .e.o,..,:,1, ; 1-, . would, p;- ma facie, rnzrkc the accuscd "";;; belore thr r oLrrt. No cloubt, no fo.-a o.J.,I'o. u speaking rr:ler is required to be passed ", ,r,,, stagc. t'Lr Code of Crimina[ procedure .".t,-ri..,, lp:lkinlf^{lrrler. to be passedunder Section} .iii:, <,f CrPC vr4rer r he complaint is clismissed and that o,> the rcasor.t; need to bc stated only ltriefly. tn ottr.. words, th,l lvlagistrate is nor to ait as 2 pa,s1 6;1r;,1 in tal<ing r oilnizance of cach and cvery i,,-1rf ^.,-t^t filcd belbl l-rim and issue process as a ntat c:. of r:orLrst:. ''h:rr: musI bc sufllcient inaication ;n ifr,.

¶61

2 120rs; tz scc +zo

¶62

'ii.

¶63

¶64

GA( .^.l Crt. P.\o.bl05^{of 2016}

¶65

order Dassecl^{bv thc Mtrgistratc that hc is satisfied} i;;i ,[; oll.soiiu,,"^{in thc complaintconslitulc an} offence and^{whcnconsidered along wtLh tnc} rccordcd and^{the result of inquiry or} ;;;;;."i" I"plti .ii"""=tigtrtion^{underSection 2o2 of CrPC'tf} ,Ju. th" o..r".d^{is answerablebeforethe criminal} ;;;;,,',h;;.^{i" gruundfor proceedingagainstthe} accused^{undcr Section2O4 of CrPC'by lssulng} ,.o."="^{[t-r r appearanccApplicatio-nof mind is best} icmonstrated^{by disclosure ofmind onLne} where "",i"i".,i"" the^{If Magistrate thlre is no such proceeds indication in underSectionsa case} lg}l2O4 of^{CrPC, the HighCourt. under secuon} iaz'ot crpc^{is boundto invoke its inherentpower} iri -a*-'," freu"nt^{abuse of the powerof the} ..i-i""i .orit^{To be called to appearbefore} criminal court^{as an accused is seriousmatter} ;il;ti-ng^{one's dignity,self respectandimage in} societv.^{Hence, thc process of criminalcourt shall} ,-,nt bJ mad"^{a weaponof harassment''}

¶66

On^{perusal of the complaint and sworn statementof} the complainant,^{it is evident that the complaint alleged to} have been^{given by the accuseddoes not bear the} the accused.^Itis GHMC,^{which has} signature^of demolished the Premises.^InsPiteofit' the petitioner/complainant^{has not madeGHMCas partyto} the complaint.^{The entire allegation of the complainantin} the complaint^{is that the accused cotluded with GHMC} and got the^{premisesdemolished'If said contentionhas} to be taken^{into consideration, loss will be occurred to the} accused being^{a landlady but not to the tenant'}

¶67

¶68

(, t( ..t (,1 1,. \ I .6JL; |)at6

¶69

1 II

¶70

i 3. FLtrtl-r,:^.nlore, the r-c,ntal agr('enI(,1I I cla t t'cl

¶71

O 1 .08.20I I rthich rs allegcri to Itarvc ltec I entered

¶72

betu,cer- tl-rr: r< cused and complainarrt disclosc e s Lrncier

¶73

"Lrrn<l ii,dv h;rs let out thc buildrnp for residr-.n i;Ll purpose, but however if the te,iLrtnts desirr: o run a (tantecn they m a,1. t_ttilizt ,he prem isr s for catr:ring purpose, but sh all not open o run il kitchen inside the prelnises. They ca rt raise [1 [emporary shecl in thc va<.,.rnt space ( n the northern sicle of the buil<lino inside , te compoLrnd ancl run the kitchcn I lLa? too r,ritlt gas stoves onl,v prorrided ne<:essiLr1, Muni<:i1: rl Permission is obtained.

¶74

'l'he ten: n ts shall ltay electricity & rl,ater ch ir ge for thc power and q,arer consumed "^r.,.v month. vhile the propert,, tax shall b,: ltairl ;i. I l-re lancl la d1, on1.1,.,,

¶75

As per t[ e above two clauses in the renta] {rlgr)entent dated 01.0U..011, it is for rhe complairiant i.c., the petitioners tc take necessarv permission lr lrn the Mur-ricipal autl o -ities prior to construction of a te ,n por ary shed in the vi::cnt space ard also to do his business; of catering and jrr order to run a kitchen with gas stoves. Admittedlf-, r1r) nlunicipal permission has br.en tirken by the petitioner-s. Fttrthermore, rrs per the clause zr ,)l- t he rental agreenre, rt the electricit_t, and u/ater c hargcs hrirre to be paid by th ) tenants. Thercrore, the ou.ner carrr ot be

¶76

¶77

x=. jtl

¶78

(;.,1(..t 01.l'.,\i61t)5 ol 20I6

¶79

held responsible as to rvater and etectricity bills. Notices dated | 1 .O5.20l2 and I 4 .O5 .2012 received by the petitioners clearly disclose thar a temporary shed was erected using a mess u,ithin the front mandatory open space towards north side, kitchen erected within the mandatory open space towards the south-east corner and batti erected to the south side, which were asked to remove

¶80

As per the above notices, it can be construed that the petitioners have not only erected a shed to open a kitchen but they have also opened a curry point, pan dabba, tea bunk on the foot path i.e., outside the premises, for which the Municipal authorities have given said notices. Even after receiving the notices, the petitioners instead of removing the shed continued business for which Municipality has demolished the entire structures. If at all, the petitioners have any grievance against the Municipal Department, they ought to have filed a complaint against the Municipality instead, they filed a complaint against the larrdlady, which is not tenable and sustainable under law.

¶81

¶82

(, t(, J ( tl.t":o.6 t05 0/ I0t6

¶83

I 6. l'he tr.ial Court its \,ell i1s ihr. Rcvrsrorr (lourt has , rp,htly dismissecl the privzrte c()mpliLu rt filed tr_y tlte lletltion 'rs and the Rer.ision Court heLs corrlirmecl the

¶84