IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THURSDAY THE TWENTYFOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7140 OF 2012
Between:
P. Amarnath … Petitioner/A-1 V/s.
The State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by Public Prosecutor High Court of A.P.
Hyderabad & Anr. … Respondents/Complainant Counsel for Petitioner : Sri Polali Venkatesh Counsel for Respondents : Public Prosecutor for R-1 Sri B.Venkateswarlu for R-2 The court made the following : [order follows] HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 7140 OF 2012
O R D E R:
This Criminal Petition is filed to quash proceedings in CC.No. 1958 of 2010 on the file of IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, for alleged offences under section 403, 406, 420, 465, 467, 120-B read with 34 IPC.
2. Heard both sides.
3. The main contention of the petitioner is that the entire complaint allegations are with highly improbable version and there is no material to support the version of petitioner. Advocate for petitioner submitted that Police after investigation referred the case as of civil nature and the petitioner also filed civil suit for recovery of money and in the protest petition he raised all improbabilities. He submitted that the allegation that petitioner misused the cheque cannot be accepted. On the other hand, cheques were given only towards discharge of money due to the petitioner from the complainant. He relied on a decision in STATE OF HARYANA [1] AND ORS. V/s. CH. BHAJANLAL AND ORS.
, wherein the Apex Court framed following seven categories of cases, which are as follows:
(a) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused;
(b) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code;
(c) where the un-controverted allegations made in the FIR or 'complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused;
(d) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code;
(e) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;
(f) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party;
(g) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.
He further submitted that the present case squarely falls under category No. [e].
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for second respondent submitted that complainant and petitioner are friends and because of their friendship money transaction was carried on with trust and the blank cheques remained with petitioner are misused taking advantage of the situation that first petitioner was out of country and if really those cheques were issued in discharge of debt due to the petitioner the cheques should have been in the name of petitioner but it was encashed in the name of wife of petitioner. He submitted that A-2 is the wife of petitioner and she filed quash petition and this court dismissed the same directing second accused to approach trial court by filing discharge petition and after dismissal of that quash petition, present petition is filed by A-1 and this petition is filed only to protract the proceedings and the trial of the case is held up on account of this petition.
5. I have perused the material papers filed along with this criminal petition and also sworn statement of the complainant and the order of learned trial Judge for taking cognizance. The complainant made so many allegations against the petitioner and his wife including forgery and fabrication of documents but the trial court has taken cognizance of offence under section 406 IPC against petitioner and dismissed the complaint in respect of other offences on the ground that there is no prima facie material attracting those offences.
6. Now as seen from the sworn statements of the complainant, it is clearly stated that on 16/2/2006 he has issued cheque bearing No.186176 by putting the amount as Rs.50,000/- but kept the name of the payee as ‘blank’ on the request of the petitioner herein towards discharge of total amount due from him to the petitioner including interest.
7. As per the allegations in the complaint blank cheques that were collected at the time of advancing money but not returned on the ground that they are misplaced and during absence of the complainant in the country they were pressed into service and amounts were withdrawn from the bank account by using those cheques. These aspects can be appreciated only during trial and it cannot be decided in a petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. basing on the submissions and counter-submissions of both parties. According to advocate for petitioner, present case falls under category No.[e] of Bhajanlal’s decision. But as seen from the material papers, there is prima facie material for the allegation of breach of trust, therefore, category No.[e] of Bhajanlal’s case is not applicable to the case on hand.
8. On a scrutiny of material placed on record, I am of the view that there is prima facie material to proceed against the petitioner and there are no grounds to quash proceedings in CC.No. 1958 of 2010 on the file of IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. However, as CC is of the year 2010, I feel that trial court shall be directed to expedite trial and decide the matter within stipulated time with liberty to petitioner to urge all the above grounds before trial court.
9. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed, directing the court below to expedite trial and dispose of it as expeditiously as possible, preferably within eight months from the date of receipt of copy of this order and the petitioner is at liberty to urge all these grounds before trial court and that trial court shall consider the same without being influenced by any of the observations made in this criminal petition.
10. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions in this criminal petition, if any pending, shall stand closed.
JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR .
24/07/2014
I s L
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7140 OF 2012
Circulation No. 8 5 Date: 24/07/2014 Court Master : I s L Computer No. 43
[1] ) 1992 SCC Suppl [1] 335