SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Telangana) 192

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
G. Radha Rani, J.
Sri. Ashwin Thakkar – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
Writ Petition No.25676 of 2014
Decided On : 21-01-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: T Surya Satish

Headnote:

constitution of India,1950 - Article 14, 19 , 21 and 226 – Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 420, 506 read with 34 - Offence of Cheating – Criminal intimidation – Act done by several persons - Charged - Petitioner No.2 filed an affidavit in support of the petition submitting that petitioner No.1 was his elder brother and petitioner No.3 was his father - His father was Proprietor of M/s. New Hyderabad Agencies, situated - Said Proprietary concern was engaged in business of selling various food grains, groceries and allied products manufactured by various companies, as a wholesaler - One Proprietor of Shop came to their shop and gave order patti of tin foods and sauce items and instructed their employee to pack same and that he would collect the items after sometime - After few minutes, along with respondent No.3, who was his brother and another person, came to their shop, illegally trespassed into cash cabin and man-handled their employee, assaulted him with hands and telephone instrument - On seeing incident their father, petitioner No.3 and came to rescue of their employee - Whether any offence was made out as alleged, simply referred matter to the respondent No.2 under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. for investigation and report - Held, Court is of opinion that continuation of further proceedings would amount to an abuse of process of the Court - Due to non application of mind; the routine manner in which complaint has been referred to the Police for investigation, failure to notice the mandate in Priyanka Srivastava's (2015) 6 SCC 287 (supra) case - Court has to come to a conclusion that continuation of this process would amount to an abuse of process of law - Allegations in compliant also would not prima facie attract offence of cheating as no amount was paid by complainant or persons claiming through him to petitioners for items which they asked them to pack - No ingredients of criminal intimidation were also made out against petitioners from complaint - As such, continuation of proceedings against the petitioners is considered as an abuse of law and hence, liable to be quashed - Writ Petition is allowed.

ORDER :

This writ petition is filed by the petitioners-A1 to A3 under Article 226 of the constitution of India seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorari for quashing the FIR No.220 of 2014 dated 16.07.2014 registered by the Police, Shahinayatgunj, for the offences under Sections 420, 506 read with 34 IPC against the petitioners as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and in violation of the provisions of IPC.

2. The petitioner No.2 filed an affidavit in support of the petition submitting that the petitioner No.1 was his elder brother and the petitioner No.3 was his father. His father was the Proprietor of M/s. New Hyderabad Agencies, situated at Begumbazar, Hyderabad. The said Proprietary concern was engaged in the business of selling various food grains, groceries and allied products manufactured by various companies, as a wholesaler. On 06.05.2014 at 2.00 PM one Mr. Bablu Bhati, Proprietor of Snajay Kumar Shantilal and Kirana Shop came to their shop and gave order patti of tin foods and sauce items and instructed their employee Mr. Devendra Lotwala to pack the same and that he would collect the items after sometime. At about 6.45 PM Mr. Bablu Bhati called upon telephone and enquired about the packing of items. Their employee informed him that the items were ready and asked him to take the same after paying the required amount, then said Bablu Bhati became angry and abused their employee in most filthy language and threatened him with dire consequences. After few minutes, Mr. Bablu Bhati along with the respondent No.3, who was his brother and another person, came to their shop, illegally trespassed into the cash cabin and man-handled their employee, assaulted him with hands and telephone instrument. On seeing the incident their father, the petitioner No.3 and Mr.Mayur Udavani came to the rescue of their employee. The said persons left the place threatening with dire consequences. Their employee lodged a complaint with the respondent No.2 police on 06.05.2014 at 9.50 PM and the respondent No.2 registered the said complaint as FIR No.139 of 2014 for the offences under Sections 448, 323, 506 read with 34 IPC against Mr. Bablu Bhati, respondent No.3 and another person and the respondent No.2 after completion of investigation filed charge sheet dated 30.05.2014 before the XVI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

3. As a counter blast to the above case, the respondent No.3 had filed a false and frivolous complaint before the XVI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, City Criminal Courts at Nampally against the petitioners. The Court without looking into the facts and without appreciating as to whether any offence was made out as alleged, simply referred the matter to the respondent No.2 under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. for investigation and report. Based on the orders of the Court, the respondent No.2 registered FIR No.220 of 2014 dated 16.07.2014 against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 420, 506 read with 34 IPC. The respondent No.2 after registering the FIR, issued notices under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. to the petitioners calling upon them to explain as to why they should not be arrested in the case on the said charges. No case was made out under Sections 420 and 506 IPC. As per the FIR, no amount was paid by the respondent No.3 or the person claiming through him for the items asked to be packed. Therefore, there was no element of cheating. The averments of the complaint also would not make out any case under Section 506 IPC against the petitioners. The complaint was an abuse of process of law and prayed to issue a writ of certiorari by quashing the FIR No.220 of 2014.

4. Notice was issued to the respondent No.3. The respondents No.1 and 2 were represented by the learned Government Pleader for Home. There is no representation for the respondent No.3 even after service of notice.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top