HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR Criminal Petition No.15931 of 2013 Date: 08-7-2014 Between Rajesh Ramnani and 3 others … Petitioners/ Accused 1 to 4 and Lekhraj Ramnani … Respondent/
De facto Complainant
The State of A.P., Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad, Through SI of Police, Begumbazar PS, Hyderabad District … Respondent HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR Criminal Petition No.15931 of 2013 Order:
The petitioners seek for the quashment of Crime No.204 of 2013 on the file of Begumbazar Police Station, Hyderabad for the offences under Sections 406, 420 and 506 IPC. Questioning the same, the present claim is made. The 1st respondent is the de facto complainant.
2. The 1st respondent lodged a complaint with Police. The case of the complainant is that the accused, who are his nephews being the children of his brothers, decided to open branches at Road No.1, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, International Airport and Hitech City, Madhapur under the name and style of M/s. Karachi Bakery. The funds for starting the branches were generated from the branch of M/s. Karachi Bakery at Mozamjahi Market. The petitioners allegedly started business but did not submit any accounts to the firm and to the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent contended that the petitioners have an evil mind right from the inception to defraud him and that the petitioners had resorted to forgery and cheating as well as to misappropriation of huge monies of the partnership firm.
3. The 1st respondent was shown his place by the petitioners when he sought for the details of the accounts of Banjara Hills Branch on the ground that he was not a partner of the business in the Banjara Hills Branch.
It is contended by the 1st respondent that the petitioners thus committed fraud, forgery, cheating and misappropriation.
4. On the basis of the complaint, First Information Report (FIR) was issued. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the dispute is a pure civil dispute and that the civil dispute could not be converted into a criminal litigation. He submitted that the petitioners were running an establishment in a premises owned by the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent issued a legal notice to the petitioners to vacate the premises followed by an FIR for trespass and mischief, which was registered as Crime No.1016 of 2013 of Madhapur Police Station, Cyberabad under Sections 447 and 427 IPC. Subsequently, the present complaint was lodged which was registered as FIR in Crime No.204 of 2013.
The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that no specific overt act was attributed against the petitioners.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners placed
[1]
reliance upon V.Y.JOSE v. STATE OF GUJARAT .
In that case, a complaint alleging cheating filed by the complainant against the accused was held to be a civil dispute relating to a contract and that the Court was required to invoke Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash such a complaint. In CHANDRAN RATNASWAMI v. K.C.
[2]
PALANISAMY , the Court observed:
“A court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution.”
6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the 1st respondent is trying to foist the case against the petitioners to force them to succumb to the pressure of the 1st respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that a Memorandum Of Understanding (MOU) was reached between the petitioners on the one side and the 1st respondent on the other side after filing of the complaint and that the MOU described the dispute as a civil dispute. Be that as it may, the question whether it is a civil dispute or a criminal lis is for the Court to decide. Agreement between the parties either that it is a civil dispute or a criminal litigation is of no value.
7. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent submitted that the petitioners resorted to several criminal activities including cheating, criminal misappropriation, breach of trust, fraud and forgery.
As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent, it is for the Police to investigate and determine whether the allegations constitute a civil dispute or a criminal litigation. At the threshold of the investigation, I do not consider it appropriate to scuttle the investigation on the ground that the dispute is a civil dispute. I therefore see no merits in this petition.
8. Consequently, this criminal petition is dismissed. In the event Police ultimately issues a charge-sheet against the petitioners, the petitioners would be at liberty to seek for appropriate relief. For the present, this criminal petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. The miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this petition shall stand closed.
Dr. K.G.SHANKAR, J.
08th July, 2014. Ak HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR Criminal Petition No.15931 of 2013 08th July, 2014. (Ak)
[1] (2009) 3 SCC 78
[2] (2013) 6 SCC 740