MANTHENA RAMESH Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is questioning continuance of criminal proceedings against him in C.C.No.657 of 2016 on the file of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Bhongir. The said case is being prosecuted by the State for the offence under Ss. 406, 417, 420 and 506 of IPC on the basis of the charge sheet filed by the police after investigating the complaint of the 2nd respondent.

(2.) The 2nd respondent filed complaint against this petitioner alleging that Sri Vinayak Filling Station situated on the High Way from Hyderabad to Warangal in Anantharam Village was for sale. He approached the petitioner who was present in the Bunk and stated that he was the owner and offered it to sale for an amount of Rs.50.00 lakhs. However, the sale consideration was finalized at Rs.42,44,000.00 . Having made enquiries, the 2nd respondent came to know that that the petrol bunk was standing in the name of Vidyasagar, resident of Warangal and sanctioned under SC quota. When confronted, petitioner informed that he had paid for all the expenses for sanction of petrol bunk till its establishment. On 17/2/2008, an amount of Rs.5.00 lakhs was paid as advance and the remaining amounts were also paid. Complainant also ran the petrol bunk till the year 2013. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent insisted that Petitioner gets the sale deed-cum-GPA executed in his name by Vidyasagar in whose name petrol bunk stands. However Vidyasagar informed that he is the owner of the bunk and due to differences between him and the petitioner, he stopped signing DDs and other papers pertaining to petrol bunk. Further, the petitioner did not inform about the sale of petrol bunk to him. Though there were persistent demands by the 2nd respondent, petitioner failed to return the amount of Rs.42.44 lakhs.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that even according to the 2nd respondent, he knew about the petrol bunk standing in the name of Vidyasagar and paid the amount during the year 2008. He ran petrol bunk till the year 2013 for a period of five years. Offence of either cheating or criminal misappropriation does not arise since the 2nd respondent knew all the facts and handed over money to the petitioner. He relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarabjit Kaur v. The State of Punjab & another,2023 LiveLaw (SC) 157. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that breach of contract does not give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown at the beginning of the prosecution. Merely on the allegation of failure to keep up the promise will not be enough to initiate criminal proceedings.