Back
2023 Supreme(Telangana) 518
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K.SURENDER, J
Manthena Ramesh – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana - Respondent
Criminal Petition No.10847 of 2016
Decided on : 17-08-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sri N.Avaneesh
For the Respondents: Sri T.Surya Satish
IMPORTANT POINT
The transaction in question was purely civil in nature and did not amount to cheating or criminal misappropriation.
Headnote:
CHEATING - SALE OF PETROL BUNK - The court held that the transaction in question was purely civil in nature and did not amount to cheating or criminal misappropriation. The complainant was aware of the ownership of the petrol bunk and ran it for five years, thus no misrepresentation or fraudulent intention was established.
Fact of the Case:
The 2nd respondent alleged that the petitioner sold a petrol bunk owned by someone else and failed to return the sale amount of Rs. 42.44 lakhs.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the transaction was civil in nature and did not constitute cheating or criminal misappropriation. The complainant's actions and knowledge of the ownership of the petrol bunk were inconsistent with the allegations of misrepresentation and fraudulent intention.
Issues: The issues revolved around whether the transaction constituted cheating or criminal misappropriation, and whether there was misrepresentation or fraudulent intention on the part of the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that no misrepresentation or fraudulent intention was established, as the complainant was aware of the ownership of the petrol bunk and ran it for five years.
Final Decision: The proceedings against the petitioner in the criminal case were quashed, and the criminal petition was allowed.
ORDER :
1. The petitioner is questioning continuance of criminal proceedings against him in C.C.No.657 of 2016 on the file of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Bhongir. The said case is being prosecuted by the State for the offence under Sections 406, 417, 420 & 506 of IPC on the basis of the charge sheet filed by the police after investigating the complaint of the 2nd respondent.
2. The 2nd respondent filed complaint against this petitioner alleging that Sri Vinayak Filling Station situated on the High Way from Hyderabad to Warangal in Anantharam Village was for sale. He approached the petitioner who was present in the Bunk and stated that he was the owner and offered it to sale for an amount of Rs.50.00 lakhs. However, the sale consideration was finalized at Rs.42,44,000/- . Having made enquiries, the 2nd respondent came to know that that the petrol bunk was standing in the name of Vidyasagar, resident of Warangal and sanctioned under SC quota. When confronted, petitioner informed that he had paid for all the expenses for sanction of petrol bunk till its establishment. On 17.02.2008, an amount of Rs.5.00 lakhs was paid as advance and the remaining amounts were also paid. Complainant also ran the petrol bunk till the year 2013. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent insisted that Petitioner gets the sale deed-cum-GPA executed in his name by Vidyasagar in whose name petrol bunk stands. However Vidyasagar informed that he is the owner of the bunk and due to differences between him and the petitioner, he stopped signing DDs and other papers pertaining to petrol bunk. Further, the petitioner did not inform about the sale of petrol bunk to him. Though there were persistent demands by the 2nd respondent, petitioner failed to return the amount of Rs 42.44 lakhs.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that even according to the 2nd respondent, he knew about the petrol bunk standing in the name of Vidyasagar and paid the amount during the year 2008. He ran petrol bunk till the year 2013 for a period of five years. Offence of either cheating or criminal misappropriation does not arise since the 2nd respondent knew all the facts and handed over money to the petitioner. He relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarabjit Kaur v. The State of Punjab & another, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 157. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that breach of contract does not give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown at the beginning of the prosecution. Merely on the allegation of failure to keep up the promise will not be enough to initiate criminal proceedings.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent would submit that the petitioner has taken money for selling the petrol bunk which was owned by someone else. All the grounds raised by petitioner are factual issues which can only be decided by the trial Court, as such, proceedings cannot be quashed.
5. The 2nd respondent admits that he knew about the petrol bunk standing in the name of one Vidyasagar even prior to giving an amount of Rs.42,44,000/- to the petitioner. From the year 2008 to 2013 the 2nd respondent was running the petrol bunk.
6. In the complaint, the 2nd respondent stated that when he asked Vidyasagar about the sale transaction in the year 2013, he said that he did not know about the sale transaction. The said statement appears to be highly improbable. Even before handing over the amount to the petitioner, complainant had enquired and came to know about the petrol bunk standing in the name of Vidyasagar. After confronting the petitioner regarding ownership, amount was handed over to petitioner. Having run the petrol bunk for a period of five years stating that when he had enquired with Vidyasagar, he stated that he did not have knowledge about the sale, apparently made up for the purpose of filing criminal complaint against the petitioner.
7. To attract an offence of cheating, there should be
