S. Srinivas Reddy vs. The State Of Telangana
Held
The Court refused to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner/A2. The Court considered the nature of the allegations leveled against the petitioner, which stated that both A1 and A2 had purchased computers for their business by paying an advance amount but failed to pay the balance. The Court found no reason to grant anticipatory bail in light of these allegations and accordingly dismissed the Criminal Petition. The Court did not explicitly discuss the arguments regarding separate businesses or lack of GST payments in its reasoning for refusal.
Facts
The petitioner (A2) sought anticipatory bail in a criminal case registered for offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The complaint alleged that A1 and A2 purchased 100 desktops for their business, Srinivasa Computers, paying an advance of Rs. 8,50,000/- and promising to pay the balance of Rs. 22,00,000/- upon delivery. The de-facto complainant delivered the goods, but the balance amount was not paid. The petitioner argued that A1 was an independent dealer, A2 had a separate business, and there was no privity of contract between A2 and the complainant. The petitioner also stated that no purchase order, invoice, or GST payments were made concerning the transaction.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner/A2 is entitled to anticipatory bail in connection with Cr.No.180 of 2019 registered for offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC, considering the allegations of non-payment of balance amount for computer goods purchased. The petitioner argued that he had no involvement in the transaction, as the advance was paid by A1, and A1 and A2 operated separate businesses. The petitioner contended there was no privity of contract and no GST payments were made, suggesting a lack of direct involvement in the alleged cheating. The petitioner expressed willingness to abide by any court conditions. The respondent-State, through the Additional Public Prosecutor, implicitly argued against granting anticipatory bail by presenting the allegations of the complaint, which indicated a joint purchase and subsequent failure to pay the balance amount by both A1 and A2.
Sections Cited
Section 438
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.6399 of 2019 ORDER:
This Criminal Petition, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed by petitioner/A2, seeking to grant anticipatory bail in Cr.No.180 of 2019 on the file of Mahankali Police Station, Hyderabad District, registered for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner/A2, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent-State and perused the record.
It is alleged in the complaint that on 20.09.2019 at about 2.30 PM, A1 came to the shop of the de-facto complainant and stated that himself and A2 were required 100 Desktops of HP and Dell make, for their business in Srinivasa Computers, and he paid token advance of Rs.8,50,000/- with a promise to pay the balance amount of Rs.22,00,000/- after delivery of the material, and that at about
30 PM, the de-facto complainant handed over the material to the workers of A1 and A2, but they failed to pay the remaining balance amount and requested one week time, however, even after several demands, they did not pay the said amount, thereby cheated him.
L
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Telangana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.