Allowed

K. Anish Kumar v. The State of Telangana and another

Telangana HC27 Nov 2024CRLRC/187/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal revision petition seeking to set aside an order dismissing a discharge application under Section 239 CrPC. The Court held that there were no specific allegations against the petitioner and found no prima facie material connecting him to the offences of cheating and criminal intimidation.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 22.12.2022 dismissing the discharge application under Section 239 CrPC was set aside.

K. Anish Kumar Vs The State of Telangana and another — Cheating and Forgery | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF^NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT ,

¶4

THEIIONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 187 OF 2023

¶6

Criminal Revision Case U/s 397 R/w 401 Cr.P.C against the^Ordermade in Crl.M.P.No.347 of 2022 in C.C.No.87 of^{2016 dated 22.12.2022on the file of} the Court of the lAdditional Judicial Magistrate of^{First Class at Bodhan,} Nizamabad District.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Dr.K. Anish Kumar, Dr. K. Anish Kumar, S/o.^{K. Ravi KumarAge 35 years,Occ.} Doctor, C/o.Sri Sai Rama Dental Care, H.No.13/8/2,^{TudaRoad, Tirupathi, Chittoor} District, Andhra Pradesh State.

¶9

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor^{HighCourt at} Hyderabad.

¶12

Pola Raghavendra, Sio.Vittal Rao, Age. 40^years, Occ.^{Business, R/o.} H. No. 1 -45, Kotag i ri vi llase a nd M^a nd a l,^{-]:flE3Bt^il.J,il"r"o*} "ro,^ro",

¶13

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶14

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that^{in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the^{High Courtmay be pleasedto stay} all further proceedings including appearance^{of the Petitionerin C C.No.B7l2016} on the file of the I Additional Judicial^{Magistrateof First Class at Bodhan,} Nizamabad District.

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRl. P.ANIMI^REDDY

¶16

Counsel forthe Respondent No.1^{: PUBLIG PROSECUTOR}

¶17

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL

¶19

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.187 oF 2023

¶20

ORDER:

¶21

This CrirrLinal Revision Case is filed seeking to set aside the order dated 22.12.2022 in Cr1.M.p.No.34Z of 2022 in C.C.No.B7 of 2016 on the file of the learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at Bodhan (for short, "the trial Court,,).

¶22

Heard Mr.P.Animi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.E.Ganesh, iearned Assistant public prosecutor appearing for respondent I\o.2-State.

¶23

The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2/d_e facto complainant is the Managing partner of M/s.Sai Agro Industries, which is si[ua[erd at survey No.2g2, Rampur Road, Kotagiri Mandal. It is stal.ed that respondent No.2 was doing business in Milling, Trading of all types of Rice and converting paddy into Rice. It is statcd that on rs.rl.2or4 accused No.1 along with his partners came t.o the saicl Rice Mill, introducing themselves as TTD Rice Suppl1, Contractors and offered to purchase Rice from the said Company. It is further statecl that, at their request, respondent No.2 had dispatched 34 M.Tonnes (34O er,rintals) of Grade A. Rau. Rice Silky Sortex from his Mill in lorries arranged

! i

by them from Bodhan thror-rgh^{Mayur Transport, Bodhanald} that he paid Rs. 10,000/- towards^{Lorry Freightadvance.Itis} further stated that the accused^{paid an advance amount of} Rs.2,50,000/- through RTGS^{on 20.11'2014 to Andhra Bank for} the first consignment of l7O Quintals,^{anadvance of} Rs.2,50,000/- for the second^{consignment of l7O} Quintals.^Later, they paid Rs.45,O0O/- on^{11.12.2014to Andhra Bank Account} and stopped to pay the^{remainingarnount of Rs.S, 10,500/-'It is} also alleged that accused Nos.1^{and 2 sold the rice inopen} market, with a criminal intention to^{cheat the Company;further} on repeated requests, accused^{gave chequeof Rs.2,72,750/- ald} failed. to give security for^{remaining balance amount of} Rs.2,37,75O I arrd thus, misappropriated^{the whole amount'}

¶28

It is alleged that when respondent^{No.2 demanded the} balance amount, accused No.l^{along with his partnershad} absconded. Basing on the said^{facts, the present crime is} registered against accused^{Nos. 1 to 3 for the offencespunishable} under Sections 420 ald 506 of^{I.P.C. Aggrievedby the same, the} petitioner/ accused No.2 filed discharge^{applicationbefore the} trial Court under Section^{239 of Cr.P.C. seeking to dischargehim} from the alleged offences. The trial^{Court, vide impugnedorder,} dismissed the clischarge application^{filed by} the

¶29

-l

¶30

petitioner/ acctlscd No.2 by stating that there is^pima facie materiai to connect the petitioner with the^{offences punishable} under Section:; 42O and 5O6 of I.P.C. Assailing^{the same,the} petitioner prefe rred the present Revision

¶31

Learned ,rounsel for the petitioner contended that he is the son of accusecl No.1, who was doing the Rice business and^the petitioner is a Doctor (Dental Surgeon) by Profession. The complainant l-rad deliberately mentioned the name of the petitioner in the complaint, only with an intention to harass him. Relying upon the statement of Mr.Chinta Suresh, owner of Venkateswara Lorry Transport, who is purported to be a circumstantial^rvitness examined by the police, he lvould state that there is involvement of accused No.1 in the present crime and that the olfences as alleged against the petitioner would not withstand the scrutiny of law. To substantiate his contention learned counsel relies upon the decisions passed by the Hon'ble Supreme CourI in Hotline Teletubes and Components Limited and Othersl; \Iir Prakash Sharma Vs. Anil Kumar Agarwal and

¶32

another2 and s;eeks to allow this Revision

¶33

'(2O05)^{iO Suprein,:Court Cases 261} 2 (2OO7) 7 Supreme Clourt Cases 373

¶34

¶35

¶36

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor^{would submit that the} trial Court had rightly and appropriately^{passedthe impugned} order and interference of this^{Court, at this stage, is. not} warranted. Therefore, he seeks to^{dismiss this Revision.}

¶37

7 . Having regard to the submissions of^{both the learned} counsel and upon careful scrutiny^{of the complaint dated} 08.04.2015 and Section¹⁶¹ Cr'P'C.^{statements of the witnesses,} it can be seen that there are no^{specific allegations againstthe} petitioner herein except stating that^{accused No.1 along with his} partners, with a criminal intention, sold^{the Rice in the open} market, to cheat the Company^{and thereby, gain wrongfully'The} cheque return memo and^{the photo copies ofinvoiceare} purported to be the transactions^{between respondent No'2 and} accused No.1. Therefore,^{relying upon the decisions cited (supra1} and 2), this Court is of the^{opinionthat there is no allegation on} the part of the^petitioner/ accused^{No.2 as to the act of} inducement and intention^{to cheat the complainantfrom the very} inception. Therefore, this Court^{deemsit appropriateto set aside} the order dated 22.12.2022 in^{Cr1.M.P.No.347of2022 in} C.C.No.B7 of 2016 on the file^{of the learned I Additional Judicial} Magistrate of First Class,^{at Bodhan}