HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD *****

Criminal Petition No.1689 OF 2018 Between:

Rafeeq Akbani and another. ..Petitioners/Accused And The State of Telangana Rep. by its Public Prosecutor and another …Respondents/ Complainants Criminal Petition No.1690 OF 2018 Between:

Anwar Akbani …Petitioner/Accused And The State of Telangana Rep. by its Public Prosecutor and another …Respondents/Complainant DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCEMENT: 06.11.2023 Submitted for approval.

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

1 Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Yes/No Judgments?

2 Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals Yes/No

3 Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship Wish to see their fair copy of the Yes/No Judgment?

__________________

K.SURENDER, J * THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER + CRL.P. No. 1689 of 2018 % Dated 06.11.2023 # Rafeeq Akbani and another … Petitioners/Accused And $ The State of Telangana Rep. by its Public Prosecutor and another …Respondents/ Complainant + CRL.P. No. 1690 of 2018 # Anwar Akbani …Petitioner/Accused And $ The State of Telangana Rep. by its Public Prosecutor and another …Respondents/Complainant ! Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri P.Shashi Kiran ^ Counsel for the Respondents: Additional Public Prosecutor for R1 Sri Pramod Kumar Kedia for R2 >HEAD NOTE:

? Cases referred

1 (2005) 10 Supreme Court Cases 336 2 (2005) 10 Supreme Court Cases 228

3 2002 (1) ALD (Crl.) 889 (A.P) 4 2000 (1) ALD (Crl.) 895 (A.P)

5 (2023) 8 Supreme Court Cases 734

6 2009 (2) ALD (Crl.) 358(SC) 7 SLP (Crl.) NO.6364 of 2019

8 2014 (1) ALD (Crl.) 233 (AP)

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL PETITION NOS.1689 AND 1690 OF 2018

COMMON ORDER:

1. Criminal Petition No.1690 of 2018 is filed by A1 and Criminal Petition No.1689 of 2018 is filed by A2 and A3 for quashing the proceedings against them in Crime No.109 of

2017 pending investigation before the CCS, Hyderabad.

2. The defacto complainant approached the Commissioner of Police, CCS and filed written complaint on 21.07.2017 which was registered for the offence under Sections 420 and 406 r/w 34 of IPC. It is alleged in the complaint that the petitioners approached the defacto complainant for purchase of refined edible oils. Petitioners promised to pay cost of the supplied material within 15 days from the date of supply and also assured interest at the rate of 24% per annum if the payment goes beyond the promised date. Believing the representation and assurance given by the petitioners, from 20.12.2014 to 06.02.2015 against 9 invoices, oil was supplied. Prior to the said transactions initially amounts were paid within time from the date of purchase and thereafter started making payments belatedly and callously. Thereafter, the petitioners denied to payment of major amounts. On verification of the accounts, the total outstanding was Rs.1,00,24,069/-. For not paying the said amount, the defacto complainant suffered mental stress.

3. Thereafter, the 2^nd respondent persuaded the petitioners for issuance of cheques. The chques which were issued by the petitioners when presented for clearance were returned unpaid by the bank with an endorsement ‘insufficient funds’. Intimation was given of the said dishonour and complaints were also filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

4. The conduct of the petitioners in delaying payment and issuing cheques which were dishonoured amounts to an offence of cheating and criminal breach of trust, as such, complaint was filed. The said complaint was registered and being investigated into by the police.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners have in fact made payments even according to the defacto complainant, however, the cheques which were issued towards payment were returned unpaid, for which reason, the present complaint was filed. To attract an offence of cheating, the intention to cheat should be from the inception of the transactions and subsequent failure