advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Sunday, January 27, 2013

respondent No.2 can invoke the jurisdiction of the criminal Court under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; that without initiating the mandated procedure, filed the above complaint and hence, he prays to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. -The de facto complainant believing the false representation made by the petitioner, supplied 11 loads of paddy weighing 2,300 tonnes of paddy, but he did not pay a single pie and on demand, the accused issued the above said three cheques and when they were presented, the de facto complainant was informed by the bank authorities that no amount was lying in the account of the petitioner. If the petitioner knowing that there was no amount available in his account, issues a cheque, it is a deception. Therefore, the case of the de facto complainant is that the petitioner intentionally deceived him and has taken away 11 loads of paddy and did not pay that amount. Therefore,prima facie offence under Section 420 IPC is made out against the petitioner. Hence, the question of quashing the proceedings against the petitioner does not arise.


THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU

CRIMINAL PETITION No.109 OF 2013

ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) seeking to quash the proceedings in F.I.R. No.286 of 2012 of Mylavaram Police Station, Krishna District, registered for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

2.      The petitioner herein is the accused and respondent No.2 herein is the de facto complainant in the above crime.  The allegation against the petitioner is that the he has allegedly purchased 2,300 tonnes of paddy from the de facto complainant with an assurance that he would pay the amount as soon as the de facto complainant raises the bill. By the end of December, 2011 the petitioner has to pay Rs.23,00,000/- to the de facto complainant.  The petitioner issued three cheques for Rs.8,00,000/-, Rs.6,00,000/- and Rs.4,00,000/-, totaling to an amount of Rs.18,00,000/-, and promised to pay cash of Rs.5,00,000/-.  When respondent No.2 presented the said cheques for encashment, the bank authorities informed him that previously also so many cheques, similar to the present ones, were issued but no amount was lying in the account of the petitioner.  Therefore, respondent No.2 filed the present complaint.

3.      Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that respondent No.2 can invoke the jurisdiction of the criminal Court under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; that without initiating the mandated procedure, filed the above complaint and hence, he prays to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

4.      At the initial stage of the First Information Report, the Court has to see whether the uncontroverted allegations in the complaint made out a prima facie case or not.  Once it is found that the allegations make out a prima facie case, it is the statutory duty of the Police to conduct investigation.  Section 420 IPC reads as under:
Section 420 IPC: Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.- Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

                               ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS

(a)               A person cheats:
(b)               Her thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived-
(i)                 to deliver any property to any person, or
(ii)              to make other or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security.

5.      From the above, it is clear that for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC there must be an inducement or making a false representation and thereby a person would gain wrongfully.  The allegation against the petitioner is that a false assurance was given by him that he would pay the entire amount as and when the de factocomplainant raises the bill.  The de facto complainant believing the false representation made by the petitioner, supplied 11 loads of paddy weighing 2,300 tonnes of paddy, but he did not pay a single pie and on demand, the accused issued the above said three cheques and when they were presented, the de facto complainant was informed by the bank authorities that no amount was lying in the account of the petitioner.  If the petitioner knowing that there was no amount available in his account, issues a cheque, it is a deception.  Therefore, the case of the de facto complainant is that the petitioner intentionally deceived him and has taken away 11 loads of paddy and did not pay that amount.  Therefore,prima facie offence under Section 420 IPC is made out against the petitioner.  Hence, the question of quashing the proceedings against the petitioner does not arise.

6.      Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.   Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, filed in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.
______________
K.C. BHANU, J

04.01.2013
KH

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.