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

2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 22850

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Y. Lakshmana Rao, J
Idupulapati Srinivasa Rao – Appellant
Versus
Kakarla Vinay – Respondent
Criminal Petition



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, Sri P.Vivek
For the Respondents: Sri Neelotphal Ganji, Sri N.Ashwani Kumar

The court held that Sections 406 and 420 IPC cannot co-exist as they are distinct; in a sale transaction, once property passes, there is no entrustment, and contractual disputes should not be given criminal colour.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 403, 406, 409, 420 - Pre-arrest bail - Dispute arising out of commercial transaction - Allegations of cheating, criminal breach of trust, and dishonest misappropriation - Entrustment and dishonest misappropriation under Section 406 and fraudulent inducement under Section 420 are distinct and cannot co-exist - In a sale transaction, once property passes to the purchaser, there is no entrustment, and Section 406 is not applicable - For cheating under Section 420, criminal intention must exist at the inception of the transaction - In criminal breach of trust, mere proof of entrustment is sufficient - Both offences cannot co-exist simultaneously - Preliminary enquiry mandatory in cases involving commercial transactions before registration of a crime - Unexplained delay in lodging FIR casts doubt on veracity - Matters predominantly contractual in nature should not be given criminal colour. (Paras 15-21)

(B) Appeal - Pre-arrest bail - Court sitting in bail application is to consider the necessity of custodial interrogation - Where offences are punishable with imprisonment not exceeding seven years, necessity of custodial interrogation does not arise - Grant of bail is not to be mechanically refused - Conditions of bail must be stringent enough to ensure fair investigation. (Paras 15, 24)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners, Idupulapati Srinivasa Rao (Accused No.1) and his wife Idupulapati Madhavi (Accused No.2), sought pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.132 of 2025 of Patamata Police Station, NTR District, for alleged offences under Sections 403, 406, 409, and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The de-facto complainant, Kakarla Vinay, a designated partner of Navyandhra Grama Vaidya Healthcare Services LLPs, alleged that between September 2021 and May 2023, the petitioners misappropriated funds totaling Rs.11,99,68,000/- which were entrusted for acquisition of land in Visakhapatnam. While 5.38 acres were registered in favor of the complainant's LLP, the petitioners allegedly diverted the remaining funds and caused 9.5 acres to be registered in their own entity, Blue Sea Ventures LLP. The complaint was lodged on 15.03.2025.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the dispute essentially arises from a commercial transaction involving contractual obligations. The simultaneous invocation of Sections 406 and 420 is legally incongruous as they are antithetical to each other. There was an unexplained delay of nearly two years in lodging the FIR, and no preliminary enquiry was conducted as mandated by law. The medical condition of the first petitioner was also considered. The court granted pre-arrest bail with conditions.

Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners were entitled to pre-arrest bail given the allegations of cheating, criminal breach of trust, and dishonest misappropriation in a commercial transaction context.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the offences under Sections 406 and 420 cannot co-exist simultaneously as they are distinct and operate in different spheres. Section 406 requires lawful entrustment followed by dishonest misappropriation, while Section 420 requires deception at the inception. In a sale transaction, once property passes to the purchaser, there is no entrustment, and no case of criminal breach of trust is made out. Disputes involving contractual obligations should not be given criminal colour. Preliminary enquiry is mandatory in commercial transaction cases before registration of a crime.

Result: Criminal Petition allowed.

Legal Category Hierarchy

  • crime and sentencing
    • offences involving property
      • cheating (Para 15, 17, 18)
      • criminal breach of trust (Para 15, 16, 17, 18)
  • practice and procedure
    • bail
      • pre-arrest bail (Para 1, 23, 24)
      • conditions of bail (Para 24)
    • criminal procedure
      • fir registration
        • preliminary enquiry (Para 21)
      • delay in fir (Para 19)

Table of Contents

1. Pre-arrest bail petition in a case alleging cheating and criminal breach of trust arising from a commercial land transaction. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )

2. Petitioners contend dispute is civil; prosecution asserts specific allegations of entrustment and fraudulent diversion. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 8 , 9 )

3. Pre-arrest bail granted to petitioners with conditions including bond, non-interference, and passport surrender. (Para 20 , 22 , 23 , 24 )

4. Can the offences of criminal breach of trust (Section 406 IPC) and cheating (Section 420 IPC) be simultaneously invoked for the same set of facts?

No, they are antithetical. Section 406 requires lawful entrustment, Section 420 requires deception at inception; they cannot coexist. (Para 15 , 17 , 18 )

5. Is a preliminary enquiry mandatory before registering an FIR in cases involving commercial transactions?

Yes, as held in Lalita Kumari, a preliminary enquiry is mandatory in commercial transaction cases before FIR registration. (Para 21 )

6. Does an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR cast doubt on its veracity?

Yes, a delayed complaint without explanation is viewed with suspicion as it permits embellishments and fabrications. (Para 19 )

7. Can criminal breach of trust be alleged in a transaction that is essentially a sale of goods?

No, in a sale, property passes to the purchaser; there is no entrustment. Non-payment is a civil remedy, not criminal breach of trust. (Para 16 )

ORDER

The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 & 2 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.132 of 2025 of Patamata Police Station, NTR District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Section 403, 406, 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘the I.P.C.’)

2. The case of the prosecution is that between 20.09.2021 and 23.05.2023, at Flat No.4, Satyam Towers, Road No.7, Bharathi Nagar, Vijayawada, the accused persons, namely Idupulapati Srinivasa Rao (Accused No.1) and his wife, Idupulapati Madhavi (Accused No.2), committed acts amounting to cheating, dishonest misappropriation of property, and criminal breach of trust. The complaint was lodged on 15.03.2025 at 06:00 hours by Sri Kakarla Vinay, who is a designated partner of Navyandhra Grama Vaidya Healthcare Services Coastal Region LLP, Capital Region LLP, and Rayalaseema Region LLP. The prosecution asserts that the complainant’s firms intended to acquire approximately 50 acres of land in Visakhapatnam for business expansion. The accused represented that they had agreements for such land but lacked sufficient funds to complete the transactions. Relying upon these representations, the complainant’s firms transferred a total of Rs.11,99,68,000/-, including Rs.2.4 crores credited directly into the personal account of Accused No.1 and Rs.29.59 crores issued through demand drafts in favor of landowners.

3. It is further alleged that out of these transactions, 5.38 acres situated in Survey No.56, Gurrampalem Village, Pendurthi Mandal, was registered in favor of Navyandhra Grama Vaidya Healthcare Services Coastal Region LLP under Document No.557/2022, for a consideration of Rs.1,77,54,000/-. However, instead of registering the remaining extent of land in favor of the complainant’s firms, the accused fraudulently diverted funds and caused 9.5 acres registered in the name of their own entity, Blue Sea Ventures LLP, thereby misappropriating Rs.10,05,14,000/- belonging to the complainant’s firms. Despite repeated assurances, the accused failed to fulfill their commitments.

4. Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri P.Vivek, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the allegations contained in the typed report are wholly misconceived, vague, and omnibus in nature. The de-facto complainant asserts that he is a designated partner of certain LLPs, namely Navyandhra Grama Vaidya Healthcare Services Coastal Region, Capital Region, and Rayalaseema Region. It is alleged that in the year 2021, one of the partners of the said firms approached the Petitioners, who had earlier entered into agreements of sale with certain landowners, and expressed interest in purchasing the lands. The Petitioners, in good faith, introduced the complainant’s partner to the landowners, who themselves admitted execution of agreements and receipt of advance consideration. It is further alleged that between September 2021 and May 2023, the complainant’s firms transferred a sum of Rs.11,99,68,000/-, part of which was remitted to the Petitioners’ accounts and part issued in the form of demand drafts to the landowners. Out of these transactions, 5.38 acres in Survey No.56, Gurrampalem Village, Pendurthi Mandal, was duly registered in favor of Navyandhra Grama Vaidya Healthcare Services Coastal Region LLP under Document No.557/2022. The allegation thereafter is that subsequent monies were misapplied, and lands registered in the Petitioners’ own firm.

5. Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners submits that even if the allegations are taken at face value, they disclose at best a civil dispute arising out of a commercial transaction. The attempt of the de-facto complainant is to give criminal colour to a mercantile arrangement, which is impermissible in law. The allegations are bereft of specific o

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