M RAJENDRA PRASAD Vs. STATION HOUSE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure ('Cr.P.C.') to quash the FIR No.83 of 2005, dt. 21-6-2005 of Kovur Police Station of Nellore District registered against the petitioners-accused 1 to 4 and others for the offences punishable under Sections 196, 199, 120-B, 403, 406 and 418 of Indian Penal Code ('I.P.C.').

(2.) Sri C. Padbhanabha Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that even the entire allegations in the First Information Report are taken in their entirety as true, none of the offences as alleged, have been made out against the petitioners and therefore, if the same is continued, it will lead to harassment to the petitioners as the investigating agency will frequently interfere with their rights on the ground of investigation. It is contended that in the absence of any allegations specific in nature to remotely connect the petitioners with the offence under Section 406 I.P.C. and in the absence of any allegation of entrustment of any property to any of the petitioners, they cannot be prosecuted for the alleged offences. In the absence of any false evidence given by the accused or any false declaration made by them, there cannot be any investigation for the offence under Section 196 or 199 I.P.C. Similarly, when the second respondent- complainant was given only a job work and more than four crores have been paid to excavate and transport gravelly soil as per the measurements recorded, it is only a civil dispute. Eventually, it is contended that the registration of the crime is an abuse of process of law and was intended to arm twist and black-mail the petitioners for oblique and extraneous reasons and therefore, the proceedings are liable to be quashed. The learned counsel forthe petitioners, in support of his contentions, placed reliance on U. Dhar and another v. State of Jharkhand and Anil Mahajan v. Bhor Industries Ltd..

(3.) Sri S. Srinivas Reddy, learned counsel forthe second respondent-complainant would contend that whenthe complainant specifically pleaded that to defraud and cheat the Raghava Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. ('RIPL'), to which, the complainant is the Managing Director, the petitioners hatched a criminal conspiracy with professors S.R. Gandhi and G.R. Dodagounder and thereby created a report to the effect that when fly-ash is mixed with gravel, the volume of the gravel increases as per the quantity of fly-ash added, the police are under obligation to investigate into the matter. It is contended that the said report has been brought into existence with an intention to deprive the complainant of the legitimate amounts due and therefore, the acts of the petitioners attract an offence, for which the complaint has been registered. Though it is a commercial transaction, there is always an element of cheating in the said transaction. Such transactions though gives rise to a civil dispute, if there is an element of cheating, the offending persons cannot be escaped from the criminal liability and inasmuch as cheating is specifically pleaded in the complaint, the petitioners have to be prosecuted accordingly. Since the police even after examining five witnesses could not file a report, a writ petition being W.P. No.21594 of 2005 was filed on behalf of the complainant and this Court by order dated 7-10-2005 disposed of the said writ petition directing the police to file a final report pursuant to the registration of the crime. At that stage, the petitioners filed this petition and obtained stay of the proceedings with a view to protract the matter.