Manikanta Rathod vs. The State Of Telangana

Facts

The petitioners, Manikanta Rathod and Smt. Amisha Premal Damani (Accused No. 1 & 4), filed a criminal petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings against them in C.C. No. 8411 of 2021, pending before the I Addl. Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Xll Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar. The case was registered under Cr. No. 525 of 2019 for offences punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The complaint was lodged by a Sub-Inspector of Police on 28.07.2019, alleging apprehension of individuals unloading milk powder from a DCM van. The driver stated he was transporting the powder as directed by his owner. Upon inspection, 138 bags of milk powder and 20 bags of 'Busa' were found. As the bags lacked manufacturer or marketing agency names, the vehicle and empty branded milk powder bags from a godown were seized, leading to the registration of the case.

Held

The Court held that the contentions raised by the petitioners, including the allegations regarding the ingredients of Section 420 IPC, the locus standi of the complainant, and the sufficiency of evidence, constitute disputed questions of fact. These disputed questions of fact necessitate an inquiry by the trial court. Therefore, the Court did not quash the proceedings. However, to mitigate the hardship to the petitioners, their personal appearance before the trial court was dispensed with, unless specifically required during the trial. This dispensation is subject to the condition that the petitioners are represented by their counsel on every date of hearing. The Court also granted liberty to the petitioners to agitate all the issues and grounds raised before the High Court, including filing a discharge application before the concerned trial court. The concerned court is directed to dispose of any such application on merits. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided, but deferred the determination of factual disputes to the trial court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the proceedings against the petitioners/accused No. 1 and 4 in C.C. No. 8411 of 2021, registered for offences under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, are liable to be quashed on the grounds that the complaint and charge sheet lack essential ingredients to attract the offence of cheating, and that no prima facie case is made out against the petitioners? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners argued that the complaint and charge sheet do not disclose any contract between the respondent and the accused persons to attract Section 420 IPC. They contended that the complaint is vague regarding who was deceived and that the Sub-Inspector of Police is not an aggrieved person as he does not claim to have been cheated, asserting that only an aggrieved person has locus standi to lodge a complaint under Section 420 IPC. They further submitted that no evidence has been brought on record to prove the alleged charges, and the complaint was lodged based on assumption and presumption without proper verification. They relied on the Supreme Court decision in V.Y. Jose and another Vs. State of Gujarat & another, highlighting the ingredients of Section 420 IPC, particularly the requirement of fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making a promise or representation. They also stated that despite submitting documents like tax invoices, invoices, E-way bills, and purchase orders, the police did not consider them, and continuation of proceedings is an abuse of process. Revenue's Arguments: The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that unless a full-fledged trial is conducted, the truth cannot be elicited, and therefore, sought dismissal of the criminal petition.