Telangana HC Explains Ingredients For Booking Cheating Case
HC faults mechanical issuing of summons
Hyderabad: Justice J. Sreenivas Rao of the Telangana High Court held that, to constitute an offence of cheating under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, there must be fraudulent or dishonest intention at the very inception of the transaction. Stating this, the judge quashed a criminal case filed against Polasa Ravi Kumar on a complaint lodged by V.K. Jonny that was pending before the I Additional Metropolitan Magistrate. Jonny had filed a private complaint alleging that the accused borrowed ₹12.5 lakh on various occasions and had issued promissory notes towards repayment.
When the accused failed to repay the amount despite repeated demands, a criminal case was registered with the Kushaiguda police here. The magistrate referred the matter for investigation and filing of a chargesheet. It was the specific case of the petitioner that there was no allegation in the complaint that the loan was availed with any dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction. It was contended that the property document pledged as security was genuine. Therefore, initiation of criminal proceedings amounted to a clear abuse of process of law.
Agreeing with the petitioner, Justice Sreenivas Rao noted that the complainant had filed a civil suit for recovery of ₹12 lakh and that the question of repayment was to be adjudicated in the pending civil proceedings. The court observed that continuation of criminal investigation in such circumstances would amount to an abuse of the process of law and reiterated that courts should exercise their powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings where complaints are mala fide or fail to disclose the ingredients of a criminal offence. The court took note of the fact that the value of the secured property was more than ₹1 crore and that it was not the case of the respondent that the document deposited as security was not genuine, that there was any cloud over the title, or that the value of the property was less than the amount allegedly due.
2.
HC faults mechanical issuing of summons
Justice Juvvadi Sridevi of the Telangana High Court ruled that merely “reciting the statutory language or stating the designation of director cannot in the absence of further particulars sustain a prima facie case” in a criminal complaint relating to a cheque bounce. Quashing criminal proceedings against L. Ramesh, the judge faulted the mechanical issuance of summons. “There must be evidence of judicial application of mind that the averments disclose a prima facie offence against the accused,” the judge said. The petitioner sought to quash a criminal case lodged against him on the file of the X First Class Judicial Magistrate, Nampally, in a cheque bounce case. Based on a commercial transaction, the cheque was issued in favour of Vishwaroopi Energy Pvt. Ltd and encashed. The complainant detailed various commercial transactions leading to the issuance of a cheque for the sum in April 2019. The complainant deposited the cheque, which was returned unpaid, leading to the present criminal petition. An application for discharge before the criminal court was dismissed. N. Ashwini Kumar, counsel for the petitioner, argued that the complaint must contain specific assertions that the petitioner at the time of commission of the offence was in charge and responsible for the conduct of the business. He argued that the absence of such averment was fatal, and said that his client was not engaged in the day-to-day affairs of the company. Justice Sridevi, in a 60-page judgment, dealt with the case law on the subject and the position of directors in a corporate body. She said the usage of the term “deemed” under Sections 141 and 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act “crystallises the criminal liability and vicarious liability of a person who is running the affairs of the company”. The judge said: “Since the provision created criminal liability, the conditions have to be strictly complied with.” She pointed out that the person accused must have had a role to play in relation to the alleged incriminating act. The court found that the complaint did not contain any specific factual averment against the petitioner and his functional role in the companies' day-to-day affairs.
3.
HC relief for worker on regularisation
Justice Surepalli Nanda of the Telangana High Court directed authorities to consider regularisation of the services of a full-time sweeper who has been working for several decades, holding that prolonged engagement on a temporary basis without fair consideration was unsustainable in law. The judge was dealing with a writ petition filed by B. Ananthaiah, a senior employee. seeking a direction to treat his services as regular in a last grade post and to extend consequential service benefits. The petitioner contended that he had been working on a full-time basis for several decades pursuant to an appointment order, but was denied regular pay scales, increments and other statutory benefits despite rendering uninterrupted service. It was contended that the action of the authorities in continuing him as a temporary worker amounted to unfair labour practice and violated constitutional guarantees of equality and dignity of labour. Reliance was placed on a long line of judgments of the Supreme Court and High Courts holding that employees who have worked continuously for long periods in posts of perennial nature are entitled to consideration for regularisation. Taking note of the submissions, Justice Surepalli Nanda observed that government authorities cannot indefinitely continue employees on a temporary or contingent basis when the work is regular and essential in nature. The judge reiterated that prolonged exploitation of labour under the guise of temporary engagement is impermissible. Accordingly, the judge directed the petitioner to submit a detailed representation seeking regularisation and consequential benefits. The authorities were directed to consider the same in accordance with law, keeping in view settled judicial principles, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing, and to pass appropriate orders within the stipulated time.
