Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1220 (AP)

M. F. H. Khan Nayyar v. Mohd. Babar

2004-10-25

B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

body2004
B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THIS criminal petition is filed by the accused in CC. No. 716 of 2000, on the file of the IV Metropolitan Magistrate, hyderabad, to quash the proceedings therein. ( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case giving rise to filing of this petition by the accused in CC No. 716 of 2000 are as follows: the first respondent herein is the complainant in CC No. 716 of 2000. He filed a complaint against the petitioner alleging that he promised to provide certain facilities at Mecca and Madina and on his assurance, the first respondent paid a sum of Rs. 1,30,000/- in cash towards expenses for himself and his wife. It is further averred that the petitioner failed to provide necessary accommodation in mecca and Madina and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Initially, a complaint filed by the first respondent before the iv Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad was referred to police under Section 156 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code for investigation. The police, after due investigation, filed a final report stating that the dispute is of civil nature. Thereupon, the first respondent-complainant filed a protest petition. The learned Magistrate recorded the sworn statements of the first respondent-complainant and the witnesses produced by him and took the complaint on file as CC No. 716 of 2000 and issued summons. The petitioner-accused entered appearance and filed Crl. MP No. 11174 of 2001 seeking discharge. The learned magistrate dismissed the said petition by order dated 14-2-2002. Assailing the order, the accused filed Crl. RP No. 95 of 2002, on the file of the I Additional Metropolitan sessions Judge, Hyderabad. The learned sessions Judge dismissed the criminal revision petition by order dated 19-7-2002. Hence, this criminal petition to quash the proceedings in CC No. 716 of 2000. ( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that even if the entire allegation are taken at their face value, no offence under Section 420 IPC has been made out and, therefore, the proceedings against the petitioner in CC No. 716 of 2000 are liable to be quashed. ( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that even if the entire allegation are taken at their face value, no offence under Section 420 IPC has been made out and, therefore, the proceedings against the petitioner in CC No. 716 of 2000 are liable to be quashed. ( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the first respondent submits that the Trial Court and the Revisional Court considered the material brought on record and dismissed the petition/revision filed by the petitioner seeking discharge and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be permitted to plead for discharge before this Court under section 482 Cr. PC. ( 5 ) AS seen from the record, the first respondent-complainant is said to have been assured of accommodation and boarding by the petitioner during his stay at mecca and Madina. In his sworn statement before the Court, he (first respondent) stated that the petitioner-accused did not provide accommodation of the standard as promised by him. I deem it appropriate to refer the sworn statement of the first respondent- complainant: then I saw some ad in newspaper as well as pamphlet. The said ad was published by alton Travels. In that ad, it was mentioned that he is providing accommodation in the apartmental building in Mecca as well as in Madina and also providing Hyderabad food and to and fro air ticket and all other expenditure. Then I approached on 29-1-1999 in accused s office at Nampally and expressed my intention to perform Haj pilgrimage through his travel agency. The accused told me that he will provide all facilities mentioned in the pamphlet as well as in paper ad and said that for that he will charge Rs. 65,000/- per head. Then I have agreed for it and gave my passport and my wife s passport and all other documents with photos. Actually I wanted to pay the amount by way of draft as published by him in the paper and pamphlets. He said that there is no time and insisted me to pay cash. Then I paid Rs. 1,30,000/- by cash on 3 occasions to the accused. On 18-3-1999 the accused sent myself and my wife and 4 others to Jeddah in a shape of large group and the accused was the sponsorer to the said group. After reaching Jeddah all we were sent to Mecca. Then I paid Rs. 1,30,000/- by cash on 3 occasions to the accused. On 18-3-1999 the accused sent myself and my wife and 4 others to Jeddah in a shape of large group and the accused was the sponsorer to the said group. After reaching Jeddah all we were sent to Mecca. After reaching Mecca, we were not provided accommodation in an apartmental building, but provided in an old building and provided only for 12 days. And after 12 days, the entire staff of Alton travels along with two earlier groups returned back to Hyderabad. Then I contacted the accused by trunkcall as to why his staff returned back to Hyderabad and not providing food and proper accommodation. Then the accused said that he is very sorry and told me that I made arrangement on my own and on return back to Hyderabad he will pay back whatever expenses, i incurred. On 18-4-1999, I was sent to madina from Mecca. At Madina, we were not provided with any accommodation or any facilities and food for the entire 12 days at Madina. At Mecca, the accused s man gave one receipt saying that if I show the receipt at Madina, I will be provided with accommodation and food. When I approached the hotel person and showed the receipt given by the accused s man, the hotel person did not provide any accommodation to us. From Madina also 1 made trunkcall to the accused. For which, the accused again said sorry and asked me to make arrangements on my own and he will reimburse the expenses. On 1-5-1999, myself and my wife returned back to Hyderabad and therefore I approached the accused and asked for reimbursement of expenditure incurred by me. This is a case of deficiency in service. Even if the entire allegations made in the complaint are taken at their face value, ingredients of Section 420 IPC are not made out. Therefore, the prosecution of the petitioner accused for the offence under Section 420 ipc amounts to abuse of process of Court. ( 6 ) ACCORDINGLY, the criminal petition is allowed quashing the proceedings in CC no. 716 of 2000.