Section 482 Cr.P.C.- Section 417 IPC. = At the time of betrothal ceremony, these petitioners were not present. It seems they were present when the defacto complainant went to the house of A.1 to A.3 for the purpose of discussing about arrangements to be made for performing the marriage. Except their presence at that time, these petitioners neither induced the defacto complainant to deliver any property or valuable security nor caused any wrongful loss to the defacto complainant. Their mere presence at the time of discussion for marriage arrangements, by itself, does not lead to draw a conclusion that they committed the offence of cheating. Even if the allegations in the charge sheet are taken as true and correct, at this stage, they do not disclose commission of the offence under Section 417 IPC. Hence, continuation of the impugned proceedings is nothing but abuse of process of Court.


CRLP 849 / 2013

CRLPSR 3004 / 2013
PETITIONERRESPONDENT
SYED ZAHEER PASHA & 2 OTHERS  VSTHE STATE OF AP., & ANOTHER
PET.ADV. : PANI KUMARRESP.ADV. : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
SUBJECT: U/s.482 Cr.p.c Other offences not covered(Misc.)DISTRICT:  KHAMMAM


THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU

 

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 849 of 2013

 

O R D E R:


         These Criminal Petitions are filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.86 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Yellandu.
2.      The second respondent lodged a private complaint before the court below against the petitioners and others for the offence under Section 420 IPC.   The complaint was referred for investigation to police, who registered a case in crime no.81 of 2011 of Garlabavvaram police station, and after completion of investigation, laid charge sheet for the offence punishable under Section 417 IPC.  
3.      Learned counsel for the petitioners/A.4 to A.6 contended that except presence of the petitioners at the time of engagement, no specific overt-acts are attributed against them with regard to the alleged cheating; that specific allegations are leveled against A.1 to A.3 only; that there is no dishonest or fraudulent inducement by the petitioners to deliver property, and therefore, continuation of the impugned proceedings is nothing but abuse of process of court.
4.      Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent-State contended that a prima facie case is made out from the allegations in the charge sheet, and so, there are no grounds to quash the impugned proceedings.
5.      Inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised to prevent abuse of process of court or to secure ends of justice or to give effect to the order passed under the Code.  
 There cannot be any dispute that if the allegations in the charge sheet and the statements of witnesses recorded by police during the course of investigation do not make out aprima facie case for the offence alleged, then only the question of quashing the proceedings would arise.
6.      Section 417 IPC prescribes punishment for cheating.  Necessary ingredients to constitute the offence of cheating which is defined under Section 415 IPC are thus:         
“(1) There should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him,
(2) (a) the person so deceived should be induced to deliver any property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any property; or
(b) the person so deceived should be intentionally induced to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and
(3) in cases covered by (2)(b), the act or omission should be one which causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to the person induced in body, mind, reputation or property.

7.      The allegation is that the complainant proposed to give his daughter in marriage to A.2, who is son of A.1 and A.3; as demanded by A.1 to A.3, the complainant agreed to give Rs.15.00 lakhs in cash towards dowry and gold ornaments and two wheeler, apart from household articles;  that at the time of betrothal ceremony, an amount of Rs.5.00 lakhs was given to A.2 besides presenting a gold ring; that on 6.10.2011, when the defacto complainant along with other witnesses went to the house of A.1 to discuss about arrangements with regard to marriage, A.1 informed them that his son got offer at abroad and was leaving to U.S.A. and therefore it was not possible to celebrate his marriage with daughter of the defacto complainant; that A.1, on the instigation of A.3 to A.6, had bluntly refused to perform the marriage.   
8.      Even if the entire allegations in the charge sheet are taken as true and correct, at this stage, they do not constitute a prima facie offence of cheating against the petitioners/A.4 to A.6.  
At the time of betrothal ceremony, these petitioners were not present.  It seems they were present when the defacto complainant went to the house of A.1 to A.3 for the purpose of discussing about arrangements to be made for performing the marriage.  Except their presence at that time, these petitioners neither induced the defacto complainant to deliver any property or valuable security nor caused any wrongful loss to the defacto complainant.  Their mere presence at the time of discussion for marriage arrangements, by itself, does not lead to draw a conclusion that they committed the offence of cheating.  Even if the allegations in the charge sheet are taken as true and correct, at this stage, they do not disclose commission of the offence under Section 417 IPC.  Hence, continuation of the impugned proceedings is nothing but abuse of process of Court.
9.      The Criminal Petition is, accordingly, allowed, quashing the proceedings in C.C. No.86 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Yellandu.  Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in the Criminal Petition shall stand dismissed.   
_______________
K.C.BHANU, J
6.2.2013
DRK

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 849 of 2013








6.2.2013

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.

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.

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