Mir Lateef Ali v. The State Of Telangana

HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO Criminal Petition No.9201 of 2018 ORDER:

The petitioner is the sole accused in C.C.No.1029 of 2014 pending on the file of the learned VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad. The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 417 & 420 IPC which is outcome of the report of respondent No.2-de facto complainant in Crime No.12 of 2014 of Kanchanbagh Police Station, Hyderabad, Telangana State, registered for the offences supra. 2.

The contentions in the quash petition grounds impugning the final report with cognizance are that as per the de facto complainant the petitioner-accused along with two others Dawood and Jaffer @ Babloo as per the investigation, however, that were deleted as per charge sheet, collected Rs.12,50,000/- from his relatives and friends in all nine persons to invest in gold business to give good profit of 70% out of the returns by make them believe and played fraud by him along with two others by failure to return the amount even demanded in saying the petitioner suffered losses in his business and not in a position to refund the amount and as and when the amount come he can return. The contention is from the witnesses particularly LWs 1 to 9 and the F.I.R. and the charge sheet material it is a dispute of civil nature cannot be added with criminal flavour and the prosecution

launched with ulterior motives and there is no offence made out and the proceedings are thereby liable to be quashed. 3.

Respondent No.2-de facto complainant vis-à-vis the learned Public Prosecutor representing the respondent No.1-State opposed the quash petition saying there is a prima facie accusation from the F.I.R. and the charge sheet investigation material and rightly taken cognizance by the trial Magistrate and any defence that is left open to the accused during trial and there is nothing to quash the proceedings. 4.

Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State-respondent No.1 and perused the material on record.

5.

A perusal of the F.I.R. dated 10.01.2014 of the de facto complainant-Abdul Qadeer Attari shows the accused Mr. Lateef Ali collected the amounts totalling Rs.12,50,000/- from nine persons referred in his report during November, 2012 to December, 2013 respective amounts varying from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.3.00 lakhs, who are all relatives and friends of the de facto complainant allegedly to invest in a business to give good profits and his supporters are Davood and Jaffer @ Babloo who played fraud on them and when demanded by them, he refused to return back the money saying suffered losses; hence, to take action.

6.

No doubt, from the F.I.R. there is no any prima facie accusation for the offence of cheating defined in Section 415 IPC either to attract

Section 417 or 420 IPC to register the crime. However, in the course of investigation though LW1 reiterated only the above facts, so far as the LWs 2 to 9 the so-called victims are concerned, LW2-Syed Ishaq Raza Qadri stated that the accused induced him to invest in gold business to get good return by promising to give share of 70% in the profit of his earnings and LW2 invested Rs.1.00 lakh on 26.11.2012 and after one month he has given him profit and asked him to introduce relatives and friends and accordingly, LW2 introduced his relatives and friends and the accused induced all and from them he collected huge amount and later came to know he is not having any good business and thereby cheated and when asked to refund the amount, he was dragging on and finally refused to pay the same.

The line of statements of Abdul Sattar-LW3 who invested Rs.1.00 lakh on 10.12.2012, LW4-Sk. Ghouse who invested Rs.1.00 lakh on 03.12.2012, LW5-Shafi Hussain Ansari who invested Rs.1.00 lakh on 15.01.2013, LW6-Minhaj Attari who invested Rs.50,000/- on 11.12.2013, LW7-Sk. Shaker Attari who invested Rs.50,000/- on 03.02.2013, LW8-Md. Waliuddin who invested Rs.3.00 lakhs on 03.02.2013, LW1-de facto complainant Abdul Qadeer Attari who invested Rs.1,50,000/- on 13.03.2013 and LW9-Syed Akram Shah who invested Rs.3.00 lakh on 22.07.2013. Even from the statements what they stated is he collected the amounts. They later came to know of he was not having good business and he was dragging on to pay and ultimately refused to pay.

accused intended to deceive and lured them in parting with the amounts and without even doing any business misappropriated. They stated that they came to know he was not having any gold business and thereby cheated. The investigation done by the Investigating Officer is so mechanical and he did not even verify as to there was any licence obtained by him to do any gold business and whether he actually did any gold business to give credence to said statements of the witnesses for investigation does not mean simply recording mechanical statements and filing a final report without verification of the application or not of the legal provisions for which the accusation made. What the investigation placed reliance is simply the statements and the letter between the de facto complainant and the accused for Rs.1.

00 lakh investment with condition running in nine pages where on the reverse side of each of the pages the amounts collected from other witnesses also mentioned, it is only an acknowledgment of the amount saying the dispute of civil nature, that too when the de facto complainant in his statement stated he paid initial profit and later was postponing with a promise to pay by saying suffered losses and as and when he secured money he can pay, that too when it is the de facto complainant-LW1 that stated joined other witnesses in investing their amounts also and basically he is the material witness who says initially profit distributed and after the investment by others he was saying suffered losses and not returning and not even stated by LW1 in his statement or F.I.R. of he did not do any business.

7.

Having regard to the above, the proceedings in C.C.No.1029 of 2014 on the file of the learned VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad are hereby quashed as the dispute is of civil nature and the ingredients not attracted. The bail bonds of the petitioner-accused, if any, stand cancelled.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________________ Dr. B. SIVA SANKARA RAO, J 30.11.2018 MVA