Back
2024 Supreme(AP) 997
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, J.
Peruru Pavan Kumar – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others – Respondents
Criminal Petition No: 788 of 2020
Decided On : 07-05-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Chalasani Ajay Kumar
For the Respondent: Public Prosecutor (AP), M S P Kamaraju
IMPORTANT POINT
The court highlighted that mere allegations without clear evidence of wrongful gain or loss do not suffice to establish offences under IPC Sections 420 and 379.
Headnote:
Quashment - Criminal Proceedings - IPC Sections 420, 379 - The court quashed the proceedings against the accused, finding no prima facie case of theft or cheating, emphasizing the need for clear evidence of wrongful gain and loss.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant, an advocate, alleged that the accused misled him into providing financial assistance for a compensation case, which they later diverted to another advocate, resulting in a complaint of theft and cheating.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complaint did not establish the necessary elements of theft or cheating under IPC, noting the lack of evidence for wrongful gain or loss and the significant delay in filing the complaint.
Issues: Whether there are justifiable grounds for quashing the proceedings against the accused in Crime No. 324 of 2019.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that for offences under IPC Sections 420 and 379, clear evidence of dishonest intention and wrongful gain/loss must be established, which was absent in this case.
Result: The criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings against the accused are quashed.
ORDER :
Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, J.
Seeking quashment of the proceedings against them in Crime No. 324/2019 on the file of Kadapa I Town U/G Palem Police Station registered for the offences under the Sections 420, 379 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code,1860[for short ‘IPC’], Accused Nos., 1 and 2 preferred this Petition.
2. The facts mentioned in the Petition, as projected through the complaint is a disturbing example on the way in which professional standards of legal profession are being maintained by a few Advocates.
3. The facts that led to filing of the present petition are;
a. The Complainant avers that he is an Advocate, who on 15.07.2019 was approached by a familiar person one Rajasekhar Raju, who brought Accused No.1, an Armed Reserve Constable, Accused No.2, his wife, and one Reddaiah @ Siva in connection with an accident case. It is stated the Accused No.2 informed the Complainant that her neighbour’s son-in-law/ Kovvuru Harinath died in a road accident on 06.07.2019 and the wife of the deceased/Krishnaveni, who is her friend, intends to seek compensation before the Court and she requested the Complainant to help Krishnaveni financially. It is stated that the Complainant asked them to bring Krishnaveni and her father to sign some documents.
b. It is further stated that on 16.07.2019, Rajasekhar Raju, Siva, Accused Nos. 1 and 2 came to the Complainant and took an amount of Rs.50,000/- to meet the ceremonial rites and stated that they would bring Krishnaveni and her father and would make them to sign on the documents and a promissory note for a total amount of Rs.2,00,000/- agreeing to repay the same with interest @12% per annum and to pay the advocate fee @ 10% of the total compensation amount by executing an agreement to that effect.
c. Further, it was stated that on 19.07.2019 at 9.30 p.m., Accused Nos.1 and 2 along with Siva came to the office of the Complainant and informed him in the presence of Rajasekhara Raju, Praveen Kumar, Siva Reddy, Raja and Rama Murthy that Eswaraiah, father of Krishnaveni was indebted to several others and stated that other Advocate clerks were offering more than Rs.2,00,000/-, therefore, if the Complainant pays Rs.1,50,000/-, they would bring the claimants to proceed with the case. It is stated that though the Complainant did not wish to take up the case, Accused Nos. 1 and 2 made him to give a cheque for the remaining Rs.1,50,000/-, by making him to believe that they would bring Krishnaveni and that they would execute a promissory note for the said some. It is stated that though Siva went to bring the promissory note, he returned with empty hands as the shops were closed.
d. It is averred that believing the words of the Accused, the Complainant prepared a cheque bearing No.61284 dated 20.07.2019 for Rs.1,50,000/-, and kept it in his diary by asking the Accused to bring the parties to sign the documents and only thereafter the cheque would be given. It is stated on 20.07.2019, Accused Nos. 1 and 2 came to the Complainant’s office, and stated that Siva went to bring the parties. After returning from the Court, the Complainant did not find them in his office and when he made a phone call to Accused No.1, he stated that they would come within half-an-hour, but they did not come.
e. It is stated that, when the Complainant searched for the said cheque, he could not find the same in his diary and on enquiry, he came to know that Accused Nos.1 and 2 committed theft of the said cheque and encashed the same. While the Complainant was going to lodge a complaint against the Petitioners, Siva came to him and stated that Accused Nos.1 and 2 went to bring the parties by giving them the remaining amount of Rs.1,50,000/-. Thereafter, on 29.07.2019, Siva brought the Vakalat which was signed by Krishnaveni, the wife of the deceased and on seeing the same, the Complainant stated that the signature was not original and asked for the Vakalat, which contains the original signature.
f. It is stated further that, when
