ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) to quash the proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.3314 of 2021 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Prohibition & Excise, Sangareddy District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’).

2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2/de facto complainant lodged a complaint against the petitioners stating that the petitioners approached respondent No.2 in the month of January, 2018 and induced him that there is a good project of Hostel Business at Bowrampet and if respondent No.2 invest the amount, it will become double in two years. Accordingly, they have taken money of Rs.27,50,000/- on different occasions. After two years, the petitioners are not making any payment and threatening with dire consequences over phone and physically attacked. Basing on the said complaint, the Police registered a case in Crime No.673 of 2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 of IPC and after completion of investigation, they filed charge sheet, vide C.C.No.3314 of 2021, before the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Prohibition & Excise, Sangareddy District.

3. Heard Sri Ch. Srinivas, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as Sri E. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-State and Sri C. R. Kalyan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the issue is purely civil in nature, stemming from the transactions between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2. He further submitted that respondent No.2 kept blank signed cheques and promissory notes as security for chit fund payments and that petitioner No.1 trusted respondent No.2 and did not request for return of documents. He further submitted that petitioner No.1 paid cash for a plot, but never received it and respondent No.2 issued cheques for partially repaying the debt. During COVID-19, business of respondent No.2 was totally collapsed, as such, petitioner No.1 demanded repayment, and hence respondent No.2 filed a false criminal case to avoid payment. Therefore, learned counsel further submitted that the allegations leveled against the petitioners are vague and baseless and prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against them.

5. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Trisuns Chemical Industry v. Rajesh Agarwal and others1, wherein it is held as under:

“The Chairman of the appellant company filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class alleging that the directors of another company offered to supply “toasted soyabean extractions” for a price higher than the market price. The appellant had to pay the price in advance as demanded by the accused. So the same was paid through cheques. But the accused sent the commodity which was of the most inferior and sub-standard quality, thereby the complainant suffered a loss of Rs.17 lakhs. According to the appellant he was induced to pay the price on the representation that the best quality commodity would be supplied and the price was paid on such representation. But by supplying the most inferior quality the accused deceived the complainant. The Magistrate forwarded the

1 (1999) 8 Supreme Court Cases 686

complaint of the appellant for investigation as per his order passed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The accused Directors thereupon moved the High Court of Gujarat under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing the complaint. The respondent’s counsel in the High Court put forward mainly two contentions. The first was that the dispute was purely of a civil nature and hence no prosecution should have been permitted, and the second was that the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class had no ju