The court ruled that allegations of cheating are maintainable under criminal law even if they arise from an illegal agreement, emphasizing the necessity of investigation.

JUDGMENT :

K. LAKSHMAN, J.

1. The present criminal petition is filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash FIR No. 26/2024 dt. 25.01.2024 registered by P.S. Central Crime Station.

2. Heard Mr. V. Pattabhi, learned senior counsel appearing for Ms. B. Vanaja, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. PalleNageshwar Rao, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Mr. Nimma Narayana, learned counsel for Respondent No. 3.

Factual Background

3. Respondent No. 3 herein is the complainant. He lodged a complaint dt. 16.12.2023 against the Petitioner herein and another accused before P.S. IS Sadan. The following was allegedin the complaint dt. 16.12.2023:

i. Respondent No. 3 belongs to a Scheduled Caste. In 1982, his father and other members of his community purchased lands in Bowrampet village, Mechal-Malkajgiri District. The entire sale consideration was paid and physical possession was handed over.

ii. Respondent No. 3 and his community members were in possession of the subject lands. However, in 2005, third parties started encroaching on the subject land. They filed civil suits and initiated revenue proceedings in relation to the lands owned by Respondent No. 3 and his community members.

iii. Respondent No. 3 and his community members decided to engage the Petitioner herein as their counsel, given his efficiency, eminence and popularity. Accordingly, the relevant documents were handed over to the Petitioner in 2005.

iv. Respondent No. 3 alleges that the Petitioner assured him that he has a good case and they shall win the case. A fee of Rs. 30,00,000/- was demanded by the Petitioner. Respondent No. 3 claims that the demanded fee of Rs. 30,00,000/- was paid.

v. It is alleged that, after receiving the fee, the Petitioner did not pursue the case of Respondent No. 3. There was no progress in the pending cases. Thereafter, Respondent No. 3 and his community members visited the office of the Petitioner wherein he assured that they will win the case. However, no steps were taken by the Petitioner to pursue the cases.

vi. Respondent No. 3 and his community members again visited the Petitioner’s office. The Petitioner stated that he can manage the High Court judges and get a judgment in favour of Respondent No. 3. He also stated that in other cases too, he had paid money to the judges and got favourable orders vii. The Petitioner demanded Rs. 10,00,00,000/- (Rupees ten crores) in cash to pay the judges of the High Court. Respondent No. 3 and his community members requested the Petitioner to accept Rs. 7,00,00,000/- As the Petitioner agreed, Respondent No. 3 paid Rs. 7,00,00,000/- (Rupees seven crore) in cash to the Petitioner.

viii. Thereafter, Respondent No. 3 got to know from reliable sources that the Petitioner herein colluded with the opposite side and obtained Rs. 25,00,00,000/- (Rupees twenty-five crores) in cash. After receiving the said amount, the Petitioner failed to appear on behalf of Respondent No. 3.

ix. Respondent No. 3 alleges in the complaint that, despite receiving Rs. 7,00,00,000/- in cash, the Petitioner failed to appear in his case. Further, he cheated Respondent No. 3 by inducing him to pay Rs. 7,00,00,000/- by representing that the said amount will be paid to the judges of the High Court.

x. Respondent No. 3 also named the judges of the High Court, whose names the Petitioner had taken to obtain money.

xi. Respondent No. 3 and his community members approached the Petitioner and demanded the money back. They informed the Petitioner that they seek to appoint a new advocate. However, instead of returning the money, the Petitioner hurled caste- based abuses against Respondent No. 3 xii. Respondent No. 3 informed the Petitioner that he will lodge a complaint. Hearing the same, the Petitioner requested Respondent No. 3 for a month’s time to return Rs. 7,00,00,000/-

xiii. The Petitioner returned Rs. 1,00,00,000/- But failed to return the remaining Rs. 6,00,00,000/-

xiv. When the remaining Rs. 6,00,00,000/- were demanded