The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased To vacate the stay in CrlP No.755712O18 on the file of Hon'ble High Court dtd:8/10/2018. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2019 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to extend the stay which was granted on 08-10-201 8 by this Court, pending on the fiie of the Abids Police Station with the registered FlR.No.297 of 2017. I I f .A. NO: 2 OF 2018 Petilion under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in F.l.R No. 297 of 2017 Dl. 16.12.2017 including personal appearance of the Petitioner. l.A. NO: 3 OF 2018 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumslances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to extend the stay which was granted on 2O-O7 -2019 by this court pending on the file of the Abids Police Station with the registered FIR No. 297 of 2017. l.A. NO: 4 OF 2018 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.p.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal petition, the High Court may be pleased to extend the stay which was granted on 20-07 -201g by this court pending on the file of Abids Police station with the registered FIR No. 297 of 2017. l.A. NO: 5 oF2 8 Petition under section 482 of cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition' the High Court may be pleased to extend the stay which was granted on 08 10'2018 by this court pending on the file of the Abids Police Station' ThisPetitioncomingonforhearing,uponperusingtheMemorandumof Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Pratap Narayan Sanghi, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri tril Vivekananda Reddy, Asst. Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent state' The Court made the following: ORDER / / THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL PETITION No. 7557 OF 2018 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') by the petitioner/Accused to quash the proceedings in FIR No.297 of 2OlZ, d.ated 16.72.2077. on the file of Abids Police station. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Sections 42O of Indian penal Code.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned ASsistant Public Prosecutor lor the respondent - State. Perused the record. 3- The brief facts of rhe case are that the 3.a respondent filed complaint against the petitioner herein on 16.12.2017 in the Abids Police Station. According to the complaint, the respondent was doing the Gem stones Trading Business and the petitioner took goods for sale. It was orall-v agreed that 4o/o commission on the sale of goods would be paid to the petirioner. However, the petitioner having received the goods did not return the goods or gave details of the sold goods. There is an outstanding of Rs.26 ,8Z,OZ 1/- towards the goods entrusted.

4. The said complaint was registered. The petirioner approached this Court and this Court had stayed proceedings in the crime. I

5. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that civil suit was also filed by the complainant vide OS.No.446l2019. Though, the Civil Court had initially granted interim stay, however by order dated 16.09 '2019 in IA.No.842 I 2019 , vacated the stay. Thereafter, the suit was dismissed on 05.O8.2024, since the plaintiff/complainant failed to prosecute the case. l,earned Counsel submits that on facts no case of cheating is made out. It is purely a business transaction which was already agitated before the Civil Court and the suit was dismissed.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on the Judgment of Honourable Supreme Court in Hridaga Ranian Pd' Vertna and others a. State of Bihar and onothel wherein it is held that;

73. ClLeating is defined in Section 415 of the Code as: "415. Whoeuer, by deceiuing onA person, fraudulentlg or dishonestlg induces the person so deceiued to deliuer ang propertg to anA person, or to consent that ang person shall retain -ang property, or intentionallg induces thb person so deceiued to d.o- o-r omit io do angthing rtthich he uLould not do or omit if fle tnere not so deceiued, and ruhich act or omission causes or is likelg to cause damage or harm to that person in bodg, mind, reputation or propertA, is said to 'cheqt'. Explanation.-A dishonest conceolment of facts is a deception utithin the meanirLg of this section." The section requires- (1 ) deccption of anY Person; (2)(a) fraudulently or dishonestlA inducing that person (i) to deliuer anA propertA to anA person' or ' AIR 2000 suprerne coun 2l4l (ii) to consent that anA person shall retain ang propertA; or (b) intentionallg inducing that person to do or omit to do anything tuhich he would not do or omit if Lrc uere not so deceiued, and u.thich act or omission ccuses or is likelg to cause damage or hann to tlLat person in body, mind, reputation or propertA.

74. On a reading of tLe section it is manifest that in tle definition there are set.fiirlh two separate classes of acts tuhich the person deceiued mag be induced to do. In the first place he may be indued fraudtLlently or dishonestly to deliuer ang propertA to anA person. The second class o/ acts set forth in the section is the doing or omittirtg to do anything uhich the person deceiued would not do or omit to do if he were not so deceiued. In the first class of cases the inducing must be fraudulent or dislanest. In the second class of acts, the inducing must be intentional but not fraudulent or dishonest.

75. In determining the question it has to be kept in mind that the dbtinction betueen mere breach of contract and the offence of cheating is a fine one. It depends upon. the intention of the accused at tLLe time of inducement which maA be judged bg ,his subgequent conduct but for this subsequent conduct is not tle sole test. Mere breach of contract cannot giue rise to ciminal prosecation for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the tra n saction, that is the time uhen the offence is sard to haue been committed. TLerefore it is the intention uhich is tle gist of the offence. To hold a person guilty of cheating it is necessary to show that Le had froudulent or dishonest intention ot the time of making tLe promise. From hi,s mere failure lo keep up promise subsequently such a culpable intention right at the beginning, that is, uLen he made the promise cannot be presumed.

7. Learned Counsel relied on the Judgment of Honourable Supreme Courl ir-r Rafeeq Akbani and dnother o, Stdte oJ Telangana2 it is held that; "9. As seen from the compliant, the transaction between the petitioners and the 2nd respondent was a continuous process ouer a peiod of time and poAments utere made bg the 2 AIR Ont.ine 2023 TEL l.l I I I I I 4 petitioners uhen the goods uere supplied. bg the 2nd, respondent. Though an auerment is made in the compliant that subseqt Lentlg the petitioners haue entertained an intention to clrcat the complainant and accordingty did not pay for the goods supplied, the same cannot be made bo.sis to infer that the petitioners haue cheated the deforto amplainant. As held bg the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the test to d.etertnine the intention of cheating can also be from the fact that such intention should haue been entertained_ right from the inception of the transaction. When the pdAments were regularlg being made initiallg and subsequentlg for some of tlrc inuoices paAment u.tas deferred and cheques uere issued, the ingredients of Section 42O of IpC are not made out. It cannot be said that there is an act of d.eception plaged bg the petitioners. Breach of promise or contract in the present ciranmstances cannot be held to be an offence of cheating or ciminal misappropiation punishable under Section 4O6 of IpC.. i i

8. Learned Counsel also relied on the Judgment oI Inder Mohan Gosurrmi and. another t. State of Uttdrdnchal and otherss. 9. The transaction in between the petitioner and the comprainant was in the normal course of business. _Goods were given to the petitioner and the dispute arose regarding the sold goods. The averments in the complaint do not make out a case of cheating since none of the ingredients of Section 415 of India, penal code are made out. t eln 2008 Suprerne Courr 251 5

10. Further, compiainant has filed a suit before the Civil Court and the.suit was dismissed' Though' initially ihterim orders were granted in favour of the complainant' however' for reasons stated by the Civil Court the said interim orders were vacated and thereafter' the suit was dismissed'

11. Since the transaction is purely civil in nature' the proceedings against the petitioner cannot be permitted to continue'

12. Accordingly, Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner in FIR No'297 of 2017 ' dated 16' 12'2017 ' on the file of Abids F'olice station' are hereby quashed' Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shqll 9tq4d c'!oqq-d' Sd/- A.V.S. PRASAD T REGISTRAR SI //TRUE COPY// . The ll Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate' at Nampally' Hyderabad' . +il; iii;ti;; [ori" orn"'",, Auios p-otict station Hvderabad' : d;"cC6 S;i. FlitJp Naravan Sanghi' Advocate [OPUC] . Two CCs to public pror""r(Ji,' f]i-gnt<iurt to,. the State of Telangana. [OUT]. SECTION OFFICER \ Two CD CoPies Yf R/nsk \ To, 1 2 3 4 5 I , HIGH COURT DATED 2710112025 ORDER CRLP.No.7557 of 2018 \ o 4 rrE 5rA re: 2 [ l{li ?025 t) .ors ALLOWING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION. @c"rs ffi,r