JAYACHANDRAN Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is filed under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C. by the accused in C. C. No. 4129 of 1998 on the file of the Court of the II Additional chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, seeking for quashing of the above proceeding against him, registered for the offence under Section 420 of the IPC.

(2.) I heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for respondent 2, and the Additional State public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent 1.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the basis of the complaint filed by the second respondent, Banashankari Police investigated the case as per the orders passed by the learned Magistrate under Section 156 (3) of the Cr. P. C. and submitted the charge-sheet against the present petitioner. It is pointed out by him that the complaint is filed against the petitioner and one Mr. Anil Rush who is shown as accused 1 in the said complaint and all the allegations made in the complaint are mainly against accused 1 Anil Rush as the person who made a false representation to the second respondent that all the 750 banana plantlets delivered to him are of Robusta variety and that they would yield fruits of not less than 60 to 70 kgs. According to the averments made in the complaint, out of 750 plants supplied to the complainant, 300 plants are found to be of dwarf Cavandish variety, but not of Robusta variety and the maximum yielding capacity of the said plants is 30 to 35 kgs. per plant. The learned Counsel for the petitioner there fore submitted that the complaint disclosed sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused 1 only for the offence under Section 420 of the IPC and therefore the above charge-sheet filed by the police against the present petitioner who is accused 2 in the complaint is liable to be quashed. In reply to this submission, the learned Counsel for the second respondent submitted that in the complaint filed by the second respondent against the present petitioner who is also an employee of Indoamerican Hybrid Seeds, it is alleged that he represented that the robusta variety banana plant gives 45 to 60 kgs. of banana fruits for every yield and he took him to accused 1 and thereafter, accused 1 induced him by saying that in Doddaballapura Bolt and particularly madurai Hobli each plant would definitely give more than 60 kgs. of fruits. It is further pointed out by him that in para 6 of the complaint, it is clearly alleged that when the complainant enquired both the accused as to whether 750 banana plants delivered to him are of Robusta variety plantlets, or whether any substitute has been made by mixing any other variety, both the accused replied that no other variety has been mixed and Robusta variety has been given. It is also pointed out by him that para 9 of the complaint, it is clearly alleged that both the accused are in charge of the activities of Banana Section of Indo-American Hybrid seeds and all activities are being done under their supervision and direction and even while delivering the plants, both the accused clearly and categorically represented that there is no substitute of any other variety of banana plants though they had knowledge that 300 plants are of substitute variety. He therefore submitted that the above allegations in the complaint clearly disclose sufficient grounds to proceed against accused 2 who is the present petitioner for an offence under Section 420 of the IPC. It is also pointed out by him that during investigation, the police found that there is mistaken identity insofar as accused 1 is concerned and that he was not the person who made the representation and delivered the banana plantlets to the complainant and for that reason they filed the charge-sheet against only accused 2.