IMRAN KHAN Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Petition, under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C., is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.447 of 2022 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. The petitioners herein are arrayed as A.1, A.4 and A.5 in the said C.C.

(2.) A charge sheet has been filed as against the petitioners and others, for the offences punishable under Ss. 365, 447, 323, 506, 342, 143 read with 149 IPC. The allegations, in brief, are as follows. 2nd respondent/ defacto complainant was working in Ahad Cooling Solutions, A.C. show room situated in Eluru road, Vijayawada. A.1 approached the firm and obtained quotation from 2nd respondent/defacto complainant for purchasing 8 AC units and gave a cheque for Rs.5.00 lakhs in the name of the firm viz. Ahad Cooling Solutions. It is further alleged that when it was informed that stock was not available and it would take three months' time to deliver the product, A.1 accepted. The cheque was handed over to the owner Naseer Khan. In January, 2020, 2nd respondent started pipeline work for fixing the ACs in the house of A.1, by taking Rs.1.00 lakh cash, and informed that after getting stock of ACs, work would be completed. In the month of November, 2020, A.1 enquired 2nd respondent, he replied that he was not working in Ahad Cooling Solutions and told to ask the owner Naseer Khan. When A.1 asked the owner, he told to send the remaining Rs.2.00 lakhs as per quotation so that he would bring the product and also stated that due to lock down, previous order was cancelled. A.1 gave another Rs.2.00 lakhs in the name of Ahad Cooling Solutions. Thereafter, neither 2nd respondent nor his owner responded. On 11/12/2020 at about 9.30 PM, A.1 to A.5 together went to house of 2nd respondent, and A.1, A.5 and A.4 were present at the car and A.2 and A.3 together went to house of 2nd respondent and asked him to come down for talking, and when he came down, he was forcibly taken away in their car to house of A.1. On information, brothers of 2nd respondent (LWs 2 to 4) rushed there and questioned the act of the accused. At that time, A.6 beat them and they forcibly took away 2nd respondent into house of A.1 and threatened him to see his end if he does not give their amount and sent him away from the house. Hence, the accused kidnapped 2nd respondent, criminally trespassed into house of 2nd respondent and voluntarily caused hurt with hands and wrongfully confined him and threatened with dire consequences to see his end in furtherance of their common object.

(3.) Learned counsel for petitioners contended that there are civil disputes pending with regard to return of money and execution of pending works, between 2nd respondent and petitioners herein, and as a counter blast to the demand made by A.1 and A.2 either to return their money or to execute the work, 2nd respondent/defacto complainant resorted in filing the present complaint, with the active connivance of one Mr. Nazir, and hence, he seeks to quash the impugned proceedings as against the petitioners. The learned counsel relied on a decision in Ravi Dhingra v. State of Haryana.,2023 LiveLaw (SC) 167.