Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Tippireddy Venkateswara Reddy vs The State Of A.P.,Rep.,Pp And Another on 8 July, 2022
Author: K. Sreenivasa Reddy
Bench: K. Sreenivasa Reddy
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION No.9769 OF 2015
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.321 of 2013 on the file of the Court of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First class, Eluru, arising out of Crime No.81 of 2013 of Eluru II Town Police Station, West Godavari District.
2. A charge sheet has been filed against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 IPC. Originally, a private complaint has been filed and the same was referred to police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., and the police have registered a case in Crime No.81 of 2013 of Eluru II Town Police Station, West Godavari District.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the de facto complainant is a resident of Tapy Maistry Colony, Tangellamudi, Eluru. The accused induced the de facto complainant by stating that he is the owner of ADD 9 Media, Nellore and involved in flexi and hoarding business in Nellore. In the year 2011, the accused informed L.W.2 - Narasimha Reddy that he wanted to sell 9 Ad hoardings of his Add 9 Media located at Nellore and thereby asked him to look out for any party. Thereafter, L.W.2 - Narasimha Reddy informed the same to 2nd respondent/complainant over phone and got spoke the accused with him. At that time, when the petitioner informed 2nd respondent/complainant over phone that he would sell 9 iron hoardings with size of (10 X 20) belonging to him situated at 9 different places, i.e. 1) Atmakuru Bus Stand-1, 2) Bezawada Gopala Reddy Statue-1, 3) Kondaiahpalem Gate-1, 4) Current Office Centre-2, 5) Mini Bipass-2, 6) Nippo Centre-1, and 7) Ayyappagudi-1 to him. In respect of the same, they entered into an 2 agreement with regard to handing over the iron hoardings to 2 nd respondent/complainant.
4. Thereafter, the de facto complainant paid an amount of Rs.2,40,000/- to the accused and the accused also transferred the permissions of municipal town development and the Government for the said hoardings to 2nd respondent/complainant under the said transfer endorsement agreement dated 13.07.2011. As per the terms of the said agreement, the accused had to obtain the required permissions from the concerned municipal authorities and etc., but the same was not done by the accused. Since iron hoardings were not handed over to the de facto complainant, the de facto complainant got suspicion on the accused and he had visited the places of above said hoardings. On discrete enquiries, the de facto complainant came to know that the accused is not the owner of the hoardings, and he was cheated by the accused. Hence, the complainant filed a private complaint against the accused and the same was referred to police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that even accepting the entire accusations are true and correct, no offence is made out for the reason that there is no dishonest intention at the time of inception.
6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed for quashing of proceedings stating that reading of entire charge sheet goes to show that offences under Sections 420 and 406 would certainly make out for the reason that the accused is having dishonest intention and motive to cheat the complainant right from the beginning.
7. Perused the record.
8. On perusal of charge sheet goes to show that the complainant was induced by the accused to purchase nine iron hoardings and to that 3 effect the accused and the de facto complainant entered into an agreement and on the pretext of saying that he would bring transfer endorsement agreement and other permissions from the government officials, the accused was dodging with handing over the iron hoardings in favour of the de facto complainant. The de facto complainant entertained suspicion as against the accused for not handing over the nine Ad iron hoardings to him. Upon which, the complainant has conducted discrete enquiries and came to know that the accused is not the owner of the iron hoardings.
9. Section 415 IPC reads thus:
"Section 415 of IPC says Cheating. -- Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or 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 to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat".--------
10. A reading of the said provision of law would show that the petitioner is having fraudulent and dishonest intention to deliver the property though he is not the owner of the property. In fact, the de facto complainant had paid an amount of Rs.2,40,000/- to the accused for handing over the said nine Ad iron hoardings. Without having any iron hoardings, the accused had entered into a transfer endorsement agreement with the de facto complainant and that by itself goes to show that he had an intention to deceive the de facto complainant.
11. To attract an offence under Section 406 IPC, it is essential that two of the ingredients have to be satisfied: (1) that there should be an entrustment of property to the other person; and (2) that the entrusted property should have been converted to his personal use. Going by the 4 facts of the case, it is categorically mentioned in the charge sheet that the de facto complainant has entrusted an amount of Rs.2,40,000/- to the accused for handing over the iron hoardings in his favour. But despite several requests, the accused has not paid the amount to the de facto complainant or handed over the iron hoardings to him. On enquiries, the complainant has come to know that the accused is not the owner of the iron hoardings. It is needless to mention here that the entrusted amount has been converted for his personal use.
12. Truth or otherwise of the said accusations has to be established in the course of trial. As this is a pre-mature stage, where this Court is not inclined to go into the disputed questions of fact and it is for the trial Court to decide the same.
13. In view of the same, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in the Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.
_____________________________ JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY Date: 08.07.2022.
Rns 5 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.9769 of 2015 Date: 08.07.2022 Rns