9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 539X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner failed to maintain the trust and committed breach without payment of money after receiving the goods. He also closed the business and kept himself absconding in the case under Section 138 NI Act due to which LPC proceedings were initiated against him. As it is not only a simple case of failure to repay the value of the goods but also shows his dishonest intention to deceive the 1st respondent not to pay the money after receiving the property and caused wrongful loss to the 1st respondent and wrongful gain to himself, it is considered not a fit case to quash the proceedings. The Criminal Petition is dismissed. - Criminal Petition No. 8276 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 21-1-2022 - Dr. G. Radha Rani , J. For the Appellant : C. Sharan Reddy , Advocate For the Respondents : Murli Narayan Bung , Public Prosecutor ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in CC No. 943 of 2012 on the file of II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad for the offences under Sections 406, 420 and 506 IPC. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief was that the 1st respondent filed the private complaint befor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e him on 25.05.2012 and threatened that if he visited the shop again, he would be killed. Subsequently, the petitioner kept his mobile in switch off mode and not made himself available in the shop. The neighbours of the shop of the petitioner informed the collection boy that the petitioner was not coming to the shop and was not opening the shop. The petitioner with a pre-plan and an ulterior motive and malafide intention caused wrongful loss and duped the 1st respondent to a tune of ₹ 8,95,463/- and threatened his collection boy with dire consequences. The police, after investigation, filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences under Sections 406, 420 and 506 IPC. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent-complainant. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 1st respondent took cheques bearing Nos. 203919 to 203925 from the petitioner for due performance of the business transactions. The cheques were issued in the name of the company without indicating the amount. The understanding was that the petitioner was to sell the product and thereafter he had to pay the amount based on the sale ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1st respondent filed a case against the petitioner under Section 138 of the NI Act which was numbered as CC No. 868 of 2012 and re-numbered as CC No. 338 of 2013. The petitioner failed to receive the notice in the said case also and he remained absconding. A paper notification was also issued against him. If the petitioner was a businessman, he would not have closed his shop but his shop was closed till date. He voluntarily issued the cheque with an intention to enjoy the sale proceeds to grab the money. Issuing the cheque and not keeping the balance in the account would show his malafides. The police on enquiry filed the charge sheet. The petitioner was not a prudent person. The genuineness of the complaint or the allegations could not be gone into in the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and prayed to dismiss the petition. 6. Perused the record. The charge sheet would disclose that the 1st respondent supplied oil to the petitioner under invoice Nos. 9, 12, 21, 22, 41 and 45 amounting to ₹ 8,95,463/- and the same was received and acknowledged by the petitioner on 06.04.2012, 07.04.2012, 10.04.2012 and 19.04.2012 respectively and issued cheque No. 203919 dated 23.04.2012 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... annot be construed as arising out of same set of facts. Therefore, Section 300 Cr.P.C. is not a bar for separate prosecutions for the offences punishable under Section 420 IPC and 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The question of application of the principles of double jeopardy or rule estoppel does not come into play. The acquittal of the accused for the charge under Section 420 IPC does not operate as estoppel or res judicata for a finding of fact or law to be given in prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The issue of fact and law to be tried and decided in prosecution under Section 420, IPC are not the same issue of fact and law to be tried in prosecution under Section 138 of the Act. I, therefore, do not find any force in the contentions advanced on behalf of the accused. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the above judgment in Crl.P. No. 5711 of 2009 on the aspect that the intention to deceive must be in existence at the time when the inducement was made since inception of the transaction. He also relied upon the decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Syed Vikaruddin v. State of A.P. in Crl.P. No. 8090 of 2011 dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
