THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.274 OF 2025

ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case is filed to set aside the order dated 27.01.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.2289 of 2021 in C.C.No.1016 of 2016 passed by the I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-XII Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally (for short “trial Court”).

2. The case of the petitioners is that they were facing allegations under Sections 406, 420 and 506 of IPC and that they have filed Crl.M.P.No.2289 of 2021 before the trial Court under Section 239 Cr.P.C. praying to discharge them from the charges for the aforesaid offences and the same was dismissed by the trial Court on 27.01.2025. Against the said orders, the present petition is filed by the petitioners seeking to set aside the said orders.

3. Heard the submissions of Sri Sreenivasa Rao Velivela, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri N.Chandra Sekhar, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

4. The learned petitioners counsel has submitted that the petitioners are facing allegations that they purchased steel from the de facto complainant and have not paid the amount and they have cheated the company. He further submitted that they had two decades of transaction with the de facto complainant and that they never committed any default intentionally and that the accused company sustained losses and went into liquidation and an official liquidator is also appointed. He further submitted that they have also produced ledger books of running transaction before the official liquidator and that they have never entertained any criminal intention to commit any such offence, he therefore prayed to discharge the petitioners as the said offences do not stand against the petitioners. He further argued that the Apex Court has time and again reiterated that the allegations under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC cannot go together but still the petitioners are facing allegations under both the sections and further they never threatened the de facto complainant to attract the offence under Section 506 of IPC, therefore, prayed to discharge the petitioners by setting aside the orders passed by the trial Court.

5. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 has submitted that the complaint discloses that from 2009 the petitioners were irregular in payment, there are several allegations leveled in the complaint and that at present they are due to an extent of Rs.74,89,903/-, which is a huge amount. The petitioners have evaded the payment after receiving the material by promising them that they would collect the amounts from the customers and they would pay them. Therefore, the de facto complainant has lodged the complaint and that the matter should be subjected for trial to unravel the truth. He further submitted that the statement of a third party also is recorded by the prosecution which supports the allegation made by the de facto complainant. Therefore, he prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. Perused the record.

7. The previous transaction between the de facto complainant and the accused are admitted. The only contention raised by the petitioner is that he never entertained any dishonest intention to cheat the de facto complainant. Since the petition is filed under Section 239 Cr.P.C, the said provision is extracted hereunder for the sake of reference:

“239. When accused shall be discharged.—If, upon considering the police report and the documents sent with it under section 173 and making such examination, if any, of the accused as the Magistrate thinks necessary and after giving the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being heard, the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be groundless, he shall discharge the accused, and record his reasons for so doing.”

8. While dealing with an application under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C., the trial Court is not required to conduct a detailed enquiry into the allegations or the evidentiary aspects. The Court must onl