Yadabula Lawrence vs State of Andhra Pradesh

This petition is filed u/s 482 Cr. P.C. to quash the proceedings in CC No. 190/95 on the file of the Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kakinada.

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Karapa Police Station filed a charge-sheet against the petitioner and another for an offence u/s 420 IPC alleging that the petitioner and another representing themselves as owner and broker respectively, of the firm by name and style M/s. Lenil Traders at Trichur of Kerala State requested the de facto complainant to supply 972 bags of rice on credit basis promising to pay the amount on receipt of consignment at Trichur and took delivery of the rice on 2-4-1993 worth Rs. 4,35,164.40 Ps. and then sent an amount of Rs. 3,90,535/- only and failed to clear of the balance amount of Rs. 73,723.40 Ps. including interest as per the trade custom. After making enquiries, he filed a complaint and the police filed charge-sheet, after investigation.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the transaction is purely of a civil nature and if the petitioners failed to pay the balance amount, it is a civil liability and the recourse is to file a suit for recovery of the amount and it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the petitioners are criminally liable, more particularly when they paid part of the amount and they have not entertained any dishonest intention when they entered into the transaction with the de facto complainant and hence, the proceedings are liable to be quashed. He further submitted that subsequently, they paid the balance amount besides interest and additional amount of Rs. 44,000/- and the complainant gave a letter that he does not want to prosecute the petitioner, and he relied on a decision A. L. Panian Shanmugam v. State of Andhra Pradesh 1991 SCC (Cri) 84, wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court held as under :-

".. In mercantile transactions consignments are delivered on credit and very often the payment cannot be made on the due date but that does not attract penal consequences .."

The learned Public Prosecutor did not dispute the proposition of law as submitted by the petitioner''s counsel.

Therefore, on considering the material on record, it appears that there is considerable force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The de facto complainant supplied 972 bags of rice on credit basis and received part of the amount and part of the amount was not paid. Thus the matter is purely of a civil nature and does not attract the penal provisions. Therefore, the proceedings are liable to be quashed and accordingly quashed.

In the result, the petition is allowed quashing the proceedings against the petitioner in CC No. 190 of 1995 on the file of the Addl. JFCM, Kakinada.

Petition allowed.