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.= whether the uncontroverted allegations in the complaint made out a prima facie case or not. - 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.


CRLP 109 / 2013CRLPSR 354 / 2013
PETITIONERRESPONDENT
KOTA SAMBASIVA RAO  VSTHE STATE OF AP., & ANOTHER
PET.ADV. : DILEEP KUMARRESP.ADV. : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
SUBJECT: U/s.482 Cr.p.c Quash the F.I.RDISTRICT:  KRISHNA
FILING DATE:  03-01-2013POSTING STAGE :  FOR ADMISSIONDISPOSED ON  :  04-01-2013  DIS
REG. DATE    :   03-01-2013LISTING DATE :  04-01-2013STATUS   :  ---------
HON'BLE JUDGE(S):K.C.BHANU   

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

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.