CRLP/15111/2013 of Konduru Venkata Rajendra Kumar , Venkatesh, Vs The State, on 30 December 2013

ORDER:

Criminal Petition No.15111 of 2013

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.1under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, seekingquashing of investigation in Crime No.257 of 2013 of MachavaramPolice Station, Krishna District, registered for an offencepunishable under Section 420 IPC.

The allegations in the report would disclose that thepetitioner herein is the owner of Sri Satyanarayana Agencies,distributor of Shell Industrial Lubricants for Guntur and PrakashamDistricts. The petitioner started dealing with the said businesswith the informant since November, 2011. The factum of thepetitioner started purchasing stock from the informant sinceDecember, 2011 and maintaining a running account with them isnot in dispute. With a view to create confidence, the petitioner started paying advance amounts to the informant and alsomaintained transactions in the name of Satya Exports to avail taxbenefits. In the course of business, the petitioner fell due a sum ofRs.35,60,000/- to the informant till May, 2012. In view of the debt,the informant company stopped the credit facility to the petitioner. The petitioner was postponing the payment of the due amount onone pretext or the other. Since the amount involved was quite highand as the informant also started facing financial difficulties, heinsisted for payment of the due amount. The petitioner is allegedto have told him that Satya Exports does not belong to him andthat he has not purchased any material from the informant. Whenthe accounts of the informant company were confronted, the petitioner is alleged to have accepted his fault and issued twocheques in the name of his wife and on cheque in the name of hisfather-in-law. The said cheques when presented were returneddue to insufficient funds. On enquiry, the informant came to knowthat the said cheques which are signed by the wife of the petitionerbelong to the account maintained by one of his employee and doesnot belongs to the account maintained by his wife. His furtherenquires revealed that the petitioner colluded with oneK.D.N.V.Sharma and cheated the informant. Basing on theseallegations, the above case came to be registered. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly submits that evenaccepting the allegations in the report are to be true, no offence ismade out against the petitioner. According to the petitioner, thecheques are signed by his wife and father-in-law and that thepetitioner has nothing to do with the affairs of Satya Exports.

On the otherhand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutoropposed the application stating that the allegations in the report domake out a case against the petitioner and as such this Courtcannot interdict the investigation at threshold.

Section 482 of Cr.P.C. envisages three circumstancesunder which inherent jurisdiction can be exercised viz. (1) to giveeffect to an order under the Code; (2) to prevent abuse of processof Court; and (3) to otherwise secure ends of justice. It is neitherpossible nor desirable to lay down any inflexible rule, which wouldgovern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. In order to quash aFirst Information Report under this Section, the High Court has tosee whether prima facie case against the accused is made out ornot. When the allegations in the Report make out a primafacie cognizable offence, it is the duty of police to conduct investigation. The said power cannot be invoked to interdict alegitimate prosecution and it has to be exercised very sparingly torender real and substantial justice to the parties. As held by theApex Court, it is to be exercised very sparingly and withcircumspection in rare cases to prevent abuse of process of Courtor to otherwise secure ends of justice.

Keeping in view the above principles of law with regard toscope of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., I shall nowproceed to deal with the matter.

The material on record would disclose that the case is stillat the stage of investigation. The averments in the report woulddisclose that the petitioner started purchasing material from theinformant and thereafter fell due a sum of Rs.35,60,000/-. Initiallythe petitioner denied his relationship with the informant and alsodenied any amount being due to the informant. When thepetitioner was confronted with the account, he admitted his guiltand issued three cheques infavour of the informant. Out of thesethree cheques, two cheques are signed by his wife and onecheque is signed by his father-in-law. These cheques werereturned due to insufficient funds. The enquiries made by theinformant revealed that the cheques issued by the wife of thepetitioner do not belong to her account and on the other hand, thes aid cheques belong to the account of an employee of thepetitioner.

Whoever by deceiving any person, fraudulently ordishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver anyproperty to any person, or to consent that any person shall retainany property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to door omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely tocause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation orproperty, is said to "cheat".

The averments in the report clearly reveal that the petitionerwas dealing with the informant company and was placing ordersfor the products. His wife and father-in-law, who are alleged tohave issued the cheques have nothing to do with the informant. They never dealt with the informant at point of time. It was thepetitioner, who was dealing with the informant at all times. Pursuant to the demand made by the informant, the petitioner gotissued three cheques signed by his wife and father-in-law. At firstblush the allegations in the report appeared to be civil in nature,but a close perusal of the same proved to be otherwise. The factthat the allegations in the report that the petitioner fell due a sumof Rs.35,60,000/- to the informant company and also got issuedcheques signed by his wife which do not belong to the accountmaintained by his wife clearly show that the petitioner got issuedthe cheques with a dishonest intention to cheat the informant. From the facts stated above, it can be prima facie inferred that thepetitioner had an intention to cause wrongful loss to informant andgot issued fake and fraudulent cheques to the informant.

The Apex Court in INDIAN OIL CORPN. V. NEPC INDIALTD[[1]]after referring to various authorities on the subjectobserved as under:

(i) A complaint can be quashed where the allegations made inthe complaint, even if they are taken at their face value andaccepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute anyoffence or make out the case alleged against the accused.

For this purpose, the complaint has to be examined as a whole, but without examining the merits of the allegations. Neither adetailed inquiry nor a meticulous analysis of the material nor anassessment of the reliability or genuineness of the allegationsin the complaint, is warranted while examining prayer forquashing of a complaint.

(ii) A complaint may also be quashed where it is a clear abuseof the process of the court, as when the criminal proceeding isfound to have been initiated with mala fides/malice for wreakingvengeance or to cause harm, or where the allegations areabsurd and inherently improbable.

(iii) The power to quash shall not, however, be used to stifle orscuttle a legitimate prosecution. The power should be usedsparingly and with abundant caution.

(iv) The complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce thelegal ingredients of the offence alleged. If the necessary factualfoundation is laid in the complaint, merely on the ground that afew ingredients have not been stated in detail, the proceedingsshould not be quashed. Quashing of the complaint is warrantedonly where the complaint is so bereft of even the basic factswhich are absolutely necessary for making out the offence.

(v) A given set of facts may make out: (a) purely a civil wrong; or(b) purely a criminal offence; or (c) a civil wrong as also acriminal offence. A commercial transaction or a contractualdispute, apart from furnishing a cause of action for seekingremedy in civil law, may also involve a criminal offence. As thenature and scope of a civil proceeding are different from acriminal proceeding, the mere fact that the complaint relates to acommercial transaction or breach of contract, for which a civilremedy is available or has been availed, is not by itself aground to quash the criminal proceedings. The test is whetherthe allegations in the complaint disclose a criminal offence ornot”

In view of the judgment referred to above and taking intoconsideration the nature of the allegations made in the report, itcannot be said that the case is purely civil in nature and that thereport is bereft of basic facts constituting an offence punishableunder Section 420 IPC. For the aforesaid discussion, I am of the view that there are no merits in the Criminal Petition.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

As a sequel thereto, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pendingin this Criminal Petition, shall stand dismissed.

Date:30.12.2013.gkv

_____________________

C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J

[1](2006) 6 SCC 736