Allegations of non-payment do not constitute criminal offences unless there's evidence of dishonest intention or property entrustment.

ORDER :

K. SUJANA, J.

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in C.C.No.459 of 2022 on the file of IV-Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at L.B.Nagar. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 420, 406 and 506 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘I.P.C’).

2. The facts of the case are that on 01.02.2021 the 3rd respondent-defacto complainant lodged a report before the police stating that he is doing business in Rice Bran on commission basis. He used to take orders from factories and supply to traders. In the process the 3rd respondent got acquaintance with Rohit Kedia who is the Managing Director of Rohith Extractions Pvt. Ltd., at Narapally and office at Himayatnagar and supplying rice bran on commission basis. The 3rd respondent supplied rice bran from 09.11.2020 to 30.11.2020 from various traders to a tune of Rs.69,01,521/- under different invoices from different traders. The Rohith Extractions Pvt. Ltd., received the material and assured to make payments in one month from the date of invoices. On 30.11.2020 the 3rd respondent sent one load weighing about 63 quintals and took back the same on 04.12.2020 as the Rohith Extractions Pvt. Ltd., informed that the rice is not good. The 3rd respondent approached petitioner in second week of December for making payments for which petitioner asked him to visit his office at Himayatnagar. Accordingly, 3rd respondent visited his office and when asked for payment, the petitioner became arrogant, abused him in filthy language and tried to man handle him and threatened him with dire consequences and refused to pay the amounts. Hence, petitioner with a dishonest intention to have wrongful gain, cheated the 3rd respondent. Hence, requested to take action against the petitioner. Basing on the said complaint police registered the case for the above offences.

3. Heard Sri Sharad Sanghi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondents 1 and 2. Though notice is served on the 3rd respondent, none appeared on his behalf.

4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the complaint itself shows that rice was not supplied to the petitioner in his personal capacity but to Rohith Extractions Pvt. Ltd., for its commercial operations and any disputes relating to payment of dues for goods supplied by the 3rd respondent shall be with Rohith Extractions Pvt. Ltd., but not with the petitioner. Even assuming that the averments in the complaint are true the alleged offence of criminal breach of trust and cheating ought to have registered against Rohith Extractions Pvt. Ltd., for receiving goods and not making payment but not against the petitioner in his personal capacity. There is delay of three months in lodging complaint and the allegations leveled in FIR and charge sheet do not satisfy the ingredients of Sections 420, 406 and 506 of I.P.C, as there is no entrustment of property to the petitioner and he has not mis-appropriated or converted for his own use. As such, Section 406 of I.P.C., is not attracted to the petitioner. He further contended that in order to attract the offence of cheating the accused should have the intention to deceive the 3rd respondent at the inception of the transaction and accused should fraudulently or dishonestly induce the 3rd respondent so deceived to deliver the property and the said act or omission causes damage or harm to the 3rd respondent. Therefore, the offence of cheating would only attract if the petitioner