Meharunnisha Begum v. The State Of Telangana

[3251 I i

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR TH€ STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTYNINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENWTHREE 'j r'.t-"q i.

,ffii*:rr,t '*fw&l ]: r.!.;4 i H&{Ffil+i "r-r':3{+:-.11 - T.', :':,,- PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER MIN REVIS N CAS NO:

OF criminal Revision case filed under sections 397 and 401 of crPC against the Order daled 27.O4.2O23 passed in Crl'M'P' No' 704 ot 2021 in C'C'No'1184 of ZO1O on the file of the iourt of the ll Additional Junbr Civil Judge-cum-ll Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Karimnagar' Between:

MeharunnishaBegum,WoShaikJanKhan,Agedabout34Years,Occ'Emptoyee' nyo. n. No.to-a, Rlamnagar, Mancheriat District. (Efstwhile Adilabad Distric0. ...PETITIONER/SOLE ACCUSED ,t) ANO .l . The State of Telangana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad, Through S.H'O, Karimnagar I Town P'S' Z. M/s Sebtt Motors, Authorized Passenger Car Dealers of TATA Motors, Rep' by its AGM Shravan Kumar, Rl/o H.No.8S-396, Kothirampur, Hyderabad Road Karimnagar' Karimnagar District'

...RESpoNDENTS/..M'LA'NANT -x )5 i:

.,r....f;i;r !

i'i lA NO: 2 OE 2423 Petition under Sec{ion 482 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fi{ed in support of the pefition' the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in CC No. 1184 of 2O'16 on the file of the ll Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-ll Addl, Judicial Magisdrate of First Class at Karimnagar pending disposal of the Criminal Revision Case. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M. RAl, MOHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.l: PUBLIC PROSECUT@ The Court made the following: OROER . ;.1 , u,,] '

ii

THE HOI{OURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SUR.ENDER CRIilIINAL REVISION CASE No.589 OF 2o23 ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case is hled aggrieved by the order dated, 27.04.202:3 passed by the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Karimnagar, in Crl.M.P.No.7O4 of 2O2l in CC.No.1l84 of 2O16, whereby the learned Magistrate dismissed the petition filed by the accused :;eeking discharge.

2.

The 2"d respondent/complainant is the authorized passenger car dealer of TATA Motors. Complaint was hled against the petitioner hereirr stating that she had purchased TATA Indica vista LS TDI BS-III crrr from the show room. They have approached the complainant per iodically for the purpose of servicing and on several dates it was alsc serviced.

3.

However, the main contention of the complainant is that complaint was filed by this petitioner before the District Consumer Foru.m at Karinrnagar stating that there was deficiency of service and there were inherent defects in the vehicle, for which reason compensation was sought.

4.

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum by order dated 04.O9.2O15 ordered that the cost of the TATA Indica which

was Rs.5,30,663/- along with 9o/o interest, compensation of mental agony and inconvenience, Rs. 15,OOO/- for causing Rs.2,OOO/- costs, should be pai..i by the complainant,/opposite par$r-I, to this petitioner. Further ordered the opposite party-2 to pay an amount of Rs. 1O,OOO/_ towards punitive damages. 5.

Aggrieved by the said order, the 2.a respondent_complainant herein who is the opposite party_ l, preferred an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission of Telangana at Hyderabad, vide FAIA No.7 of 2Ot6 in FASR 2O15l2O15 and the same was dismissed by order d,ated. 21.O2.2OL6 and. upheld the relief granted to the petitioner herein by the District consumer Disputes Redressal Forum.

The present complaint was lodged on 29.01.2016 i.e. nearly a month before the orders passed in the appeal filed by the 2,a respondent-complainant before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission of Telangala.

7.

As stated above, the main allegation against the petitioner herein is that though a complaint was filed in the consumer forum, the petitioner was taking services of the 2-a respondent-complainant herein for servi'cing the car. The said services were done on free and also on paid basis

J 8.

On the basis of the complaint, Police {iled charge sheet for the offence under Section 42O of the Indian Penal Code. 9.

The petiti,:ner filed application under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. prayrng to discharge her from the case. The learned Magistrate by order dated 27l)4.2023 declined the prayer for discharge, dismissed the said petitio.r and directed that the petitioner shall be tried for the offence undr:r Section 42O of the Indian Penal Code.

10. l,earned Counsel for the reyision petitioner would submit that none of the ingredients of Section 42O are made out. Even assuming that the petitioner had taken the vehicle to ttre 2.d respondent for the purpose of servicing, during ttre pendency of the complaint \ before the Consumer Forum, it will not in any way attract any of the \ ingredients of S,:ction 42O of the Indian Penal Code.

11. As seen f:om the complaint, the only allegation is that the petitioner was taking the vehicle to the 2.d respondent for the purpose of serricing and such seryices were taken during the pendency of the complaint before the Consumer Forum.

12. To attract an offence of cheating under Section 42O of tlre Indian Penal Code, a person should have acted deceitfully. By the

said act of deception a person should have delivered property, which would amount to cheating such person.

13. In the present case, except the allegation of taking services of 2"d respondent, there is nothing in the complaint to attract any of the ingredients of Section 42O of the Indian penal Code.

14. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner are quashed. Consequently the impugned order dated 27.04.2023 passed by the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First crass, Karimnagz*, in crr.M.p.No.7o4 of 2O2l tn CC.No.1184 of 2016, is hereby set aside. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ,r,,/ SD/- CH.VENKATESWARLU DEPUTY REGIS R / (y, .- , ::;

.; .-:-.

i+ii,BilT'

,j //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER '

To,

1. The ll Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class Karimnagar.(with records if any)

2. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad{OUTI

3. The Station House Officer, Karimnagar I town Police Station, Karimnagar

4. One CCto Sri M. Ram Mohan Reddy, Advocate IOPUCI

5. Sri Shravan Kumar, M/s. Select Motors, Authorised Passenger Car Dealers of TATA Motors, Rl/o 8-G396, Kothirampur, Karimnagar.

6. Two CD Copies plp t:El ',l!r r'. :r.t'

NS $'

-.&, 4H ', i

:..j,E'.t ,{* ;;,'€: $s \' t.

':

HIGH COU]RT DATED:29t1212023 ffi .,,i:l-{. ,:

.:

4i.,,,.- \:

..': ' \ i, 2I rlB \i -:

i.... rr, \i'., '\.;_:1.',,"y "1 -..' . .'.

/: r,l'

.,i . 2.*i ,,1 +J .tt,f -;' ,fil .t'' j, ti : "': ';l '';

t t', s

ORDER

CRLRC.Nc,.589 of 2023 ' .1,..i .' ,:

j ..*g*".;'i 'r jSESTHIEe-*}jr{ .,#sffi#i*t i'EAffij.ig ,+:ffir-ir:.t j_ - .11-1-j ri r, ALLOWIN(3 THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE 4tr ..

, ,1.