F. STEPHEN Vs. PRABHA SHANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UNDER Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Petitioner -accused in C.C. No. 8107 of 2000 on the file of the Court of IV Additional C.M.M. at Bangalore City has requested to quash the order dated 14.8.2001 passed by the learned Magistrate proposing to frame charge for offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of Code of Criminal Procedure

(2.) FACTS , which gave rise to the present matter, are: The complainant, being the owner of house property bearing No. 613 situated in 'T' Block of Jayanagar at Bangalore consisted of 3 floors' construction, sold the same to the Petitioner -accused for consideration of Rs. 18 lakhs under registered sale deed dated 5.3.1999. According to her, she delivered possession of the said property except the first floor portion, which was in occupation of one Indumathi - a tenant residing therein. So, a sum of Rs. 6 lakhs was given to the Petitioner -accused with conditions that he should refund it with interest @ Rs. 4% per annum subject to the eviction of Indumathi on or before 3.5.1999 and if said Indumathi is not evicted before 3.5.1999, a sum of Rs. 5,000/ - per month shall be levied as penalty on complainant and deducted in the said amount by the Petitioner -accused. Accordingly, said Indumathi was evicted before the stipulated date, but the Petitioner -accused neither paid interest nor refunded the said amount inspite of demand and notices issued. Thus, the Petitioner -accused has cheated her and committed criminal breach of trust and consequently, committed offences under Sections 403, 405, 406, 415 and 420 I.P.C. With said allegations, the Respondent -complainant approached Magistrate Court, which took cognizance of the offences and issued process against the Petitioner -accused. That was challenged by him unsuccessfully in Criminal Petition No. 92 of 2001 before this Court. Thereafter, when the matter went back to the learned Magistrate, he recorded the statement of the complainant and then, after considering the material available on record, passed the impugned order proposing to frame charge for offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 I.P.C. So, the Petitioner -accused is before this Court again.

(3.) SO , the only point for consideration is: Whether the impugned order requires to be quashed?