V SHIVANANDA KUMAR Vs. S GURUSIDDAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition, the petitioner-complainant has requested to quash the impugned order of the learned Magistrate and also the order passed by the Sessions Court confirming that order.

(2.) BRIEF facts, which gave rise to the present matter before this Court, are: complainant became friendly with the respondent-accused - a lecturer then in Central College, who used to visit Canara Bank, where he (complainant) was working as a Clerk, and house later. With a malafide intention to deceive, the accused requested him (complainant) to arrange loan of rs. 10 lakhs for promotion of garments business in Wilson Garden at Bangalore with a promise to return the same along with interest within 3 years and also to secure a job to him (complainant) in any Bank at U. S. A. That was believed by the complainant when the accused dishonestly induced him and as such, he arranged and paid loan of Rs. 9 lakhs to the accused on different dates. Thus, the accused cheated him by making false promises and false representation that he was the Proprietor of the said garment factory and executed agreement hypothecating machines etc. , of said garment factory, though the accused was not its proprietor and not intending to get a job to him in U. S. A. or return the amount taken. So, according to complainant, accused made false representations to have amount fraudulently from him and had the same on different dates and left India in May 1990 after cheating him and thereby committed various offences namely, cheating, committing criminal breach of trust etc. , punishable under Sections 406, 420, 422, 467, 468 and 120b of I. P. C. However, after recording sworn statement of the complainant and considering the documents filed by the complainant along with the complaint, the learned Magistrate issued process against the respondent-accused for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC only. On his appearance, the respondent-accused filed an application under Section 245 of Cr. P. C. requesting to discharge him. After hearing both sides, the learned Magistrate passed an order dated 18. 12. 1998 discharging the respondent-accused under Section 245 (2) of Cr. P. C. That was unsuccessfully challenged by the petitioner-complainant in the Court of Sessions in Crlr. P. No. 261/1998. It was dismissed on 28. 9. 2001. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court under section 482 of Cr. P. C.

(3.) AFTER notice to the respondent-accused, with consent of both sides, taken the matter for final hearing and heard both sides. Perused the records carefully.