Telangana High Court
Vikas Singh, Hyd vs S.H.O., Begumpet P.S. Ano on 9 November, 2021
Author: G. Radha Rani
Bench: G. Radha Rani
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.14499 of 2014
ORDER:
This petition is filed by the petitioner - accused No.1 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings against him in CC No.155 of 2013 on the file of XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad.
2. The de facto complainant lodged a private complaint before the XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad contending that the complainant was in the business of supplying computers on rental basis and in the said process, he entered into a computer rental agreement dated 02.09.2011 with the accused and under the said agreement, delivered 20 CPUs to the accused vide DC No.469 dated 02.09.2011. The accused was required to pay an amount of Rs.13,600/- per month in relation of all the 20 units. The duration of the agreement was initially for a period of six months, but the same was extended from time to time under the same terms and conditions. As on 22.11.2012, the accused were required to pay an amount of Rs.68,000/- towards arrears, but they stopped paying monthly rental amount from 17.07.2012. The accused were avoiding payment and were not returning the computers in compliance with the condition No.14 of the agreement and the said acts would constitute criminal breach of trust and cheating. Basing on the said complaint, CC No.155 of 2013 was registered against the petitioner - A1and A2.
Dr.GRR,J 2 Crl.P.No.14499 of 2014
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the de facto complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the ingredients of Sections 406 and 420 read with 120-B IPC were not attracted as per the complaint. For the actions of the Company, the employees or Directors could not be made liable. The company has a separate legal entity. The company was not made as party to the complaint. The dispute was mainly of civil in nature. Filing of complaint for recovery of amounts due under an oral rental agreement was only an abuse of process of the Court to exert undue financial pressure to the demands of the complainant and prayed to quash the proceedings.
5. Learned counsel for the de facto complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition.
6. Perused the complaint and the rental agreement enclosed. The complaint appears to have been filed for recovery of amount under the oral rental agreement. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Md.Ibrahim & Ors. v. State Of Bihar & Anr.1 held that:
"This Court has time and again drawn attention to the growing tendency of complainants attempting to give the cloak of a criminal offence to matters which are essentially and purely civil in nature, obviously either to apply pressure on the accused, or out of enmity towards the accused, or to subject the accused to harassment. Criminal courts should ensure that proceedings before it are not used for settling scores or to pressurise parties to settle civil disputes."1
2009 (8) SCC 751 Dr.GRR,J 3 Crl.P.No.14499 of 2014 The Hon'ble Apex Court in Dalip Kaur & Ors. v. Jagnar Singh & Anr.2 held that:
"The High Court, therefore, should have posed a question as to whether any act of inducement on the part of the appellant has been raised by the second respondent and whether the appellant had an intention to cheat him from the very inception. If the dispute between the parties was essentially a civil dispute resulting from a breach of contract on the part of the appellants by non-refunding the amount of advance the same would not constitute an offence of cheating. Similar is the legal position in respect of an offence of criminal breach of trust having regard to its definition contained in Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code."
The Hon'ble Apex Court in Mitesh Kumar J Sha v. State of Karnataka3 held that:
"47....this Court has at innumerable instances expressed its disapproval for imparting criminal color to a civil dispute, made merely to take advantage of a relatively quick relief granted in a criminal case in contrast to a civil dispute. Such an exercise is nothing but an abuse of the process of law which must be discouraged in its entirety."
7. In the present case also as per the complaint itself, the accused had paid monthly rental amount from 02.09.2011 to 17.07.2012. Thus, there is no intention to cheat from the very inception. As the accused were due an amount of Rs.68,000/- towards arrears as on 22.11.2012, as contended by the complainant in his complaint, he appeared to have lodged the report. As it is essentially a civil dispute arising from breach of the oral rental agreement for which the remedy lies in filing civil suit for recovery of the amount and as the criminal Courts cannot be used to pressurize the parties to settle the civil disputes, it is considered fit to quash the proceedings in CC No.155 of 2013 against the accused - A1.
2 2009 (14) SCC 696 3 Manu/SC/2021 Dr.GRR,J 4 Crl.P.No.14499 of 2014
8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the proceedings against the petitioner - A1 in CC No.155 of 2013 on the file of XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ Dr. G. RADHA RANI, J November 09, 2021 KTL