Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 406 (AP)

B. Satyanarayana Rao v. State Of Andhra Pradesh

2024-03-28

TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

body2024
ORDER : Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao, J. The quoted Criminal petition is filed to call for the records pertaining to C.C. No.670 of 2019 on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Mobile Court), Kurnool and to quash the same. 2. The 2nd respondent/complainant has filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C (for short Code). to take cognizance under Section 190 of the Code for the offence punishable under Sections 354, 384, and 420 IPC, before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Mobile Court), Kurnool. 3. Learned Magistrate has referred the matter to the police under Section 156 (3) of the Code, to exercise powers under Section 156(1) of the Code to investigate the case. The police after investigation have filed final report referring the case as false. 4. Aggrieved by the action of the police, the 2nd respondent/complainant filed a Protest Petition before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kurnool. The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance for the offence under Section 420 IPC against accused Nos. 8 to 12 and dismissed complaint against accused Nos.1 to 7 and against accused Nos.13 and 14 under Section 203 of the Code. 5. Aggrieved in dismissing the Protest Petition against accused Nos.1 to 7, and accused Nos.13 and 14, the complainant has filed Criminal Revision Petition No.73 of 2017 on the file of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool, under Section 397(1) of Code against order dated 03.09.2018 in Protest complaint in CC No.988 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool. 6. Learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool, by an order dated 09.08.2018, has allowed the Criminal Revision Petition filed by the 2nd respondent/ complainant and remanded the matter to the trial Court for fresh disposal with regard to taking cognizance of the offence against the accused Nos.1 to 7 and accused Nos.13 and 14 after considering the statements of witnesses examined by the complainant, police report and other material documents filed by the complainant. However, learned jurisdictional Magistrate by an order dated 12.04.2019 has taken cognizance against the left over accused i.e. accused Nos.1 to 7 and accused Nos.13 and 14 under Section 420 IPC r/w 34 IPC. 7. However, learned jurisdictional Magistrate by an order dated 12.04.2019 has taken cognizance against the left over accused i.e. accused Nos.1 to 7 and accused Nos.13 and 14 under Section 420 IPC r/w 34 IPC. 7. Aggrieved by order of the learned Magistrate dated 12.04.19, the present Criminal Petition came to be filed to quash the complaint in C.C. No.670 of 2019 on the ground that the ingredients of Section 420 IPC has no application on entire reading of the complaint, even taken as its face value as true, there is no prima facie case was made out against petitioner/accused for the offence under Section 420 IPC and it amounts to abuse of process of law, hence, it is implored to quash the proceedings. 8. Heard Sri Sudhakar Rao Ambati, learned counsel for the petitioners and Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent and Sri D. Lakshminatha Sastry, Party-in-Person who is the 2nd respondent/complainant. 9. To ascertain whether there are allegations which attracts Section 420 IPC, the relevant portion of the protest petition is hereby extracted: 5. The petitioner submits that he requested the Respondent stating that as he has paid Rs.45,000/- at the time of admission/joining in College at Kurnool, he requested the Respondent the balance amount will be paid within one week. The petitioner stated that he has paid Rs.55,000/- at Vijayawada College the same must be returned to him, for that the Respondent did not heed the words of the Petitioner and stated that to take him to their house. The Petitioner stated that as his vehicle condition is not in good condition, the vehicle tyre also bursted, so he requested them that he will take his girl next day morning, but the Respondent No.8 to 14 did not heed the words of the Petitioner and forcibly sent the girl from their college premises, immediately the Respondent called the Taluk Police, Kurnool by giving false information and high handedly pushed the Petitioner and his daughter from the college premises. Though there are admissions in the college nearly 600 students, the Respondent shown as there are no admissions in the year 2013-2014, they are running the college to cheat the public, government, and also college students. The Petitioner submits that Rs.3,250/- were collected as 1st Year Admission, bearing receipt no.134097346, dated 09.04.2013, but the same amount was not entered into the account. The Petitioner submits that Rs.3,250/- were collected as 1st Year Admission, bearing receipt no.134097346, dated 09.04.2013, but the same amount was not entered into the account. The examination fee collected by the Respondent college is Rs.400/-, actually they will pay to the Board only Rs.300/-. Likewise they cheating the public and students by collecting heavy amounts. 7. The Petitioner submits that forcibly took the Petitioner and girl comes under the purview of 354 IPC and also 384 IPC (Extortion). Further Cheating committed by the Respondent and others also comes to the purview under section 420 IPC. They tortured mentally and manhandled forcibly comes criminal force under IPC and all the Respondent have got common intention, each person is liable for the acts and all are colluded parties and they have got common intention to spoil the girl’s education. Therefore all the offence committed by the Respondent, hence they are liable under the above sections of law. Hence this Complaint. 10. On perusal of complaint, the ingredients of Section 420 IPC are not made out in the complainant. Section 420 of IPC attracts only when FIR/complainant discloses (1), the deception of any person (ii) fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person to deliver any property to any person and (iii) dishonest intention of the accused at the time of making inducement. 11. In the present case, the complainant paid certain amount of money to the accused college towards fees under different categories. There is no deception that was made by the accused for payment of money either fraudulently or dishonestly and there is no dishonest intention on the part of accused to cheat the amounts which were paid towards fees. 12. As held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of decisions that dishonest inducement is a sign qua non for the offence of cheating. There is no such dishonest inducement made by all the accused to the respondent/complainant in order to deceive the 2nd respondent complainant. And all the money that has been paid by the respondent/complainant is towards payment of fees and other fees. There is no such allegation that in order to deceive the complainant, the petitioners have collected the fees from the respondent/complainant. Therefore, on evaluating the entire facts, the police have rightly investigated the case and filed final report stating that it is a false case. There is no such allegation that in order to deceive the complainant, the petitioners have collected the fees from the respondent/complainant. Therefore, on evaluating the entire facts, the police have rightly investigated the case and filed final report stating that it is a false case. This Court is agreeing with the findings recorded by the police as false case. On entire perusal of the complaint, no case is made out against the petitioners/accused for the offence under Section 420 IPC. 13. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C. No.670 of 2019, on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, (Mobile Court), Kurnool, is hereby quashed. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.