Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 586 (TS)

Kothireddy Mahipal Reddy v. Y. Hepsiba

2023-08-17

K.SURENDER

body2023
ORDER: 1. This Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings against petitioners in S.C.No.98 of 2015 on the file of Special Judge for trial of S.C and S.T Cases-cum-VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District. 2. The case of the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant is that in the month of February, 2012, she approached A1 and sought assistance for preparation of project for establishing pet bottles small scale unit. A1 stated that instead of being a proprietary concern, he would introduce persons who would act as Directors if a company is launched and they would also provide collateral security for the loan taken. 33% of the profits should be given to the said Director for providing security. The 2nd petitioner/A3 was the person who provided collateral security. Both A2 and A3/petitioners 1 and 2 herein agreed to provide collateral security for the unit according to the complaint. 3. The 1st respondent expressed a doubt that after establishment of the unit, petitioners 1 and 2 may withdraw from directorship, as such it was informed that collateral security would be given even prior to establishment of the company and also before getting a loan. The premises of A4 (died pending present application) was taken for establishment of the company. However even before starting the project and prior to getting the loan, the 1st respondent was forced to pay rents. 4. A1 did not process the loan as promised and it is her case that A1 and A4 entered into conspiracy to extract rents wrongfully for the premises even prior to establishing the company. On 07.01.2014, A4 caught hold of her hand and pushed her on the ground. A4 intentionally outraged her modesty and also abused using language degrading her caste. A1, A4 and A5 have forcibly collected rents without establishment of the company contrary to the promise of A1. Further, A2 and A3, though promised to provide collateral security and be part of the company as Directors, failed to provide any collateral security. In the said circumstances, 1st respondent incurred heavy losses for the reason of paying rents. 5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that all the allegations are mainly against A1, who is not the petitioner herein. As far as petitioners are concerned, the allegation is that A1 and petitioners 3 and 4, who are A4 and A5 conspired to collect rents from her. 5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that all the allegations are mainly against A1, who is not the petitioner herein. As far as petitioners are concerned, the allegation is that A1 and petitioners 3 and 4, who are A4 and A5 conspired to collect rents from her. In fact, the 1st respondent who has taken the premises from A4 and A5 on rent, failed to pay agreed rental amount. For the reason of insisting to pay the outstanding rents, false complaint was filed. L.W.2 who is an associate of the 1st respondent made a false statement to support 1st respondent. 6. On behalf of the respondents, it was argued that these petitioners and A1 colluded to cheat the 1st respondent/ complainant. A1 had promised to provide collateral security from A2 and A3, for which reason, initial investment was made by the 1st respondent. 1st respondent believed the version of A1 and these petitioners and incurred heavy losses. When questioned, she was abused in the language degrading the petitioner and her caste, for which reason, trial has to go on. 7. As seen from the investigation, initially collateral security was promised to be provided by petitioners 1 and 2. However, they withdrew from the directorship of the company resulting in not providing any collateral security as promised earlier. 8. The allegation against 1st and 2nd petitioners is not providing collateral security as promised resulting in incurring heavy losses. The transactions have occurred in the normal course of establishing business by the 1st respondent. The role attributed to A2 and A3 is that they promised to provide collateral security and to act as Directors. Withdrawing from the directorship or not providing collateral security will not amount to any offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC. 9. It is not the case that petitioners 2 and 3 have taken any amount from 1st respondent for the purpose of providing collateral security nor have pressurized her in any manner to invest in the company. The plan of investment and how investments had to be made were by A1. The premises of A4 and A5 were taken on rent. There is no allegation that petitioners 1 and 2 have either threatened 1st respondent or abused her in public place or in public view. It is stated that they have threatened on phone. The plan of investment and how investments had to be made were by A1. The premises of A4 and A5 were taken on rent. There is no allegation that petitioners 1 and 2 have either threatened 1st respondent or abused her in public place or in public view. It is stated that they have threatened on phone. Threatening on phone will not attract the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989. General allegation is made that both A2 and A3 stated on phone that they would see her end. In the said circumstances, the ingredients of Section 506 of IPC are also not made out. 10. In the result, the proceedings against 1st and 2nd petitioners, who are A2 and A3 in S.C.No.98 of 2015 on the file of Special Judge for trial of S.C and S.T Cases-cum-VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, L.B.Nagar are hereby quashed. However, the premises which was taken on lease by 1st respondent belongs to A4 and A5. Instances are narrated when A1, A4 and A5 have physically assaulted the defacto complainant. For the said reason, the proceedings against A5 shall be continue ( A4 died during pendency of this petition). 11. Accordingly, Criminal Petition is allowed in part. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.