Hyderabad: Justice K. Surender of the Telangana High Court held that a case for cheating cannot be filed merely because there was a cheque bounce. The judge, accordingly, quashed the offences of cheating and criminal breach of trust against A. Nagi Reddy.
The petitioner, A.V.V.R. Kumar, and his younger brother, A.V.N.V. Prasad, were accused in a criminal case filed by the complainant A, Nagi Reddy before the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally.
It was alleged in the complaint that Kumar and Prasad borrowed Rs.63 lakh from Nagireddy, with a promise to return the amount with a three per cent interest within one month. However, the borrowers failed to do so.
On persistent demand of the lender, the borrowers executed two promissory notes for `31 lakh and `32 lakh on July 26, 2016. The cheques were also issued without dates with an understanding that they can be deposited at any point of time within six months.
According to Nagi Reddy, when the cheque for Rs.32 lakh was presented, it was returned by the bank citing ‘insufficient funds’. Subsequently, the second cheque also bounced.
The petitioners, Kumar and Prasad, filed an insolvency petition in 2016. Though Nagi Reddy was aware of the insolvency petition, he misused the cheques, which were taken from Kumar and Prasad earlier, and lodged a false complaint.
The petitioners, Kumar and Prasad, argued that there is an inordinate delay of seven years in lodging the complaint, which is unexplained.
Dealing with the circumstances of the case, Justice Surender pointed out that it appears that it does not indicate that there was any fraudulent intention on the part of the petitioners in the withdrawal of the complaint.
He further reasoned that the complainant is required to show that the accused had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making a promise or representation.
Even in a case, where allegations are made in regard to failure on the part of the accused to keep his promise, no offence under cheating can be said to have been made out in the absence of a culpable intention at the time of making the initial promise being absent.
He pointed out that to constitute an offence under cheating, there should not only be cheating but as a consequence of cheating, the accused should have dishonestly induced the person deceived (i) to deliver any property to any person, or (ii) to make, alter or destroy wholly or in part a valuable security.
The judge, accordingly, quashed the criminal case.
HC refuses to adjudicate Sultan-ul-Uloom Society’s title dispute
Justice C.V. Bhaskar Reddy of the Telangana High Court refused to adjudicate immediately the legality of the permissions granted to Sultan-ul-Uloom Educational Society in the city. Sheena Agro Farms Pvt Ltd had filed applications for the disposal of their cases. The crux of the controversy related to certain lands included in the forms filed by the management of Sultan Uloom College seeking affiliation in 2017. A single judge of the High Court had passed a detailed order stating that the authorities could not have rejected the case of the college on the ground that various properties including six acres claimed by Sheena Agro Farms Pvt Ltd and others were not properties of the college. The single judge and the division of the court had made clear that the pendency of the rival civil claims to the title should not jeopardise permissions granted to a 35-year-old institution.
When the matter came up Justice Bhaskar Reddy echoed the view that it was not for the High Court to look into the title dispute and that in any event the matter could not be heard at an interlocutory stage at the cusp of the summer break.
