Rep By Its Managing Prop., Mannava Vijaya Lakshmi vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh Rep By The Public Prosecutor

Held

The Court held that the allegations made against the petitioners, in this case, are prima facie sufficient enough for the trial to be taken up. The Court reiterated that in Section 482 Cr.P.C. jurisdiction, it is not functioning as a trial court, court of appeal, or revision. The powers under Section 482 are to be exercised to prevent abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice. The Court found that the petitioners raised several contentions touching upon factual aspects, such as the validity of the MoU and the nature of the transactions, which are defenses that should be tested during the trial. The Court relied on the principle that a complaint need not verbatim reproduce all ingredients of an offence, and the intention of the accused is crucial in discerning cheating, citing Rajesh Bajaj v. State (NCT of Delhi). The Court concluded that evaluating the merits of the allegations at this stage would be premature. Therefore, the proceedings against the petitioners are not liable to be quashed, and the petition lacks merit. The dismissal is without prejudice to the defense available in future.

Facts

The petitioners, accused Nos. 1 to 3, sought to quash criminal proceedings initiated against them in Crime No. 296 of 2019. The complaint alleged that Accused No. 1, a firm, and its proprietor (Accused No. 2, who has since died) and authorized signatory (Accused No. 3), were distributors for the complainant, a public limited company, for diesel and gasoline fuel injection systems. The petitioners allegedly failed to pay Rs. 9,04,58,449.04 for goods delivered on credit, despite a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed on April 4, 2019, which the complainant claimed was entered into deceitfully. The petitioners argued that the dispute was contractual/civil and the criminal proceedings were an abuse of process, citing issues with billing, sales targets, the impact of GST, and alleged coercion in signing the MoU.

Key Issues

1. Whether the allegations in the complaint prima facie establish the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 120-B, 423, and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, warranting the quashment of criminal proceedings against the petitioners under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners contended that the dispute is purely civil and contractual, not criminal. They argued that the complainant billed materials without purchase orders and failed to provide promised support and discounts. They also claimed the MoU was signed under pressure and coercion, and that the criminal proceedings were initiated with an ulterior motive to harass them and coerce them into meeting illegal demands. They further argued that Accused No. 3, as an authorized signatory, cannot be held liable, especially since Accused No. 2, the proprietor, had died. Respondent's Arguments: The respondents (State and the complainant) argued that a charge sheet has been filed, and the matter is at the stage of trial. They contended that there are clear allegations against the petitioners that attract the alleged offences. They further argued that when there are disputed facts to be revealed during trial, the High Court should not exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings.