9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (3) TMI 1100X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed before us by the counsel appearing for the parties it would be necessary to set out the brief facts leading to filing of the aforesaid complaint dated 02.07.2005. One Chunduru Subba Rao, Accused No. 1 was having a rice mill at Village Lakshmipuram in District Guntur, Andhra Pradesh under the name and style of "C.S.R. Rice Mills". He was the sole proprietor of the said rice mill. Accused Nos. 2 to Accused No. 5 are the family members of Accused No. 1 whereas Accused Nos. 6 to Accused No. 8 are son-in-law, the daughter of Accused No. 1 and the brother of the son-in-law of Accused No. 1 respectively. Accused No. 9 has also been arrayed as one of the accused in the complaint filed and he is the younger brother-in-law of Accused No. 1. Accused No. 2 and Accused No. 3 are the two sons of Accused No. 1 who are aged about 28 and 25 years respectively. Accused No. 2 is stated to be doing his job after completing his graduation from Nagarjuna University, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh and his post graduation in Master of Computer Applications under University of Madras. On the other hand, Accused No. 3 is stated to be studying Engineering course in Bapatla, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh. It is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... who supplied paddy to them. It was further stated in the charge sheet that during the year 2005 Accused No. 1 purchased paddy crop from several farmers saying that he would pay the cost of paddy as per the existing market value. They blindly believed Accused No. 1 and unloaded huge quantities of paddy produced by them and entrusted the same with Accused No. 1. But Accused No. 1 diverted part of the paddy to Accused No. 5 who was running rice mill under the name and style of `C.S.R. Industries' opposite to Sivalayam, Old Ponnur, on the ground of inadequate power supply and secretly sold it for his own use. It has been further stated that 10 days before that he had also diverted huge quantities to `NRI Industries', Ponnur. Eventually, Accused No. 1 gained unlawfully to the tune of Rs. 1,20,00,000/- by cheating the abovementioned paddy suppliers. He surrendered before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ponnur on 19.7.2005. Vide order dated 19.7.2005 in the petition for grant of anticipatory bail, the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh directed release of A-6 to A-8 and A2 to A-4 including the appellants herein. 7. On 25.11.2006 all the accused i.e. Accused No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the appellants submitted that when a sole proprietary firm had allegedly cheated some suppliers, the members of the family of such sole proprietor cannot be roped into a criminal prosecution especially in the light of the facts that the criminal complaint itself has been lodged as a counter blast to the insolvency petition filed by the owner of the sole proprietary mill and the Investigation Officers were not justified in roping-in the innocent appellants herein despite the fact that there was no substantive allegation made against them. It was further submitted that the matter is essentially having a civil profile and merely because many people have lodged criminal complaints, criminal prosecution was launched against Accused No. 2 and Accused No. 3 (appellants herein) without any basis or an iota of evidence which has gone to the extent of spoiling the bright career and future of Accused No. 2 and Accused No. 3. He also submitted that the appellants herein have nothing to do with the daily conduct of the business, income derived therefrom or with regard to alleged selling of paddy stock and in view of this the High Court ought to have taken into account the hardship and damag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... succinctly laid down. In the case of Drugs Inspector v. Dr. B.K. Krishna 1981CriLJ627 it was held by this Court that in a quashing proceeding, the High Court has to see whether the allegations made in the complaint petition, if proved, make out a prima facie offence and that the accused has prima facie committed the offence. In the said decision this Court refused quashing of the complaint on the ground that there were enough allegations in the complaint and that the accused persons were responsible for the management and conduct of the firm and, therefore, the extent of their liability could be and would be established during trial. In Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi 1983CriLJ159 it was held that when on the allegation made in the complaint, a clear case was made out against all the respondents (accused persons), the High Court ought not to have quashed the proceedings on the ground that the complaint did not disclose any offence. 13. In Municipal Corporation of Delhi (supra), this Court observed as follows in para 8: 8. Another important consideration which is to be kept in mind is as to when the High Court acting under the provisions of Section 482 should ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... omplainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused. 16. Further, this Court observed in S.W. Palanikar v. State of Bihar 2001CriLJ4765 that every breach of trust may not result in a penal offence of criminal breach of trust unless there is evidence of a mental act of fraudulent misappropriation. It observed as follows: 8. Before examining respective contentions on their relative merits, we think it is appropriate to notice the legal position. Every breach of trust may not result in a penal offence of criminal breach of trust unless there is evidence of a mental act of fraudulent misappropriation. An act of breach of trust involves a civil wrong in respect of which the person wronged may seek his redress for damages in a civil court but a breach of trust with mens rea gives rise to a criminal prosecution as well. 9. The ingredients in order to constitute a criminal breach of trust are: (i) entrusting a person with property or with any dominion over property, (ii) that person entrusted (a) dishonestly misappropriating or converting that p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facie establish the offence. It is also for the court to take into consideration any special feature that may appear in a particular case while considering whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the court cannot be utilised for any oblique purpose. The tests that are laid down in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra) are required to be applied very carefully and minutely when a prayer for quashing is laid before the court. 18. When the facts of the present case are tested in the backdrop of the aforesaid legal position, the position that emerge is as to whether or not in the report submitted with the Station House Officer, Kakumanu Police Station in Kakumanu Mandal, District Guntur on 02.07.2005 and the charge sheet which was filed by the Station House Officer, whether there is any substantial allegation against the appellants which would prima facie establish the offence alleged against the appellants. While examining the said aspect this Court is required to keep in mind the allegations made in the aforesaid report and in the charge sheet which must be considered uncontroverted. 19. We have carefully ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
