CHANDRASHEKHAR Vs. LATA W/O CHANABASAPPA BADAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by the complainant against the judgment and order of acquittal of the accused passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Ranebennur dated 22.12.2018 in C.C.No.131/2018 for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC.

(2.) The facts of the case in brief are that, a private complaint was filed by the complainant alleging of fences punishable under Section 420, 463, 464, 468 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, against accused Nos.1 and 2 who are husband and wife. The 2nd accused was running Vijayaweekly Share Company since many years at Ranebennur. The complainant was also having transaction with accused No.2 in the said Company. During his transaction he has never issued any promissory note to accused No.2. Accused No.1 is not the member of the said share Company. Even the complainant has no acquaintance of this accused. He has no monitory transaction with the accused. Even then accused No.1 and 2 in collusion with each other taking undue advantage of innocence of the complainant got created an on demand pro-note alleging that the complainant had borrowed an amount of Rs.3,35,000/- from 1st accused on 18.02.2005. Whereas no such transaction or any kind of transaction had taken place between the complainant and accused No.1. The said promissory note was created and the signature of this complainant was forged. 1st accused had filed the suit in O.S.No.139/2006 against the complainant on the said promissory note before the 1s t Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranebennur. When the notice of the suit came to the complainant, he along with other persons went to the house of the accused on 14.03.2007 at about 6.30 p.m. The 2nd accused when enquired stated that the matter is pending before the Court and to say whatever he has to say in the said suit. The accused No.1 was also present in the house. Even she had insulted the complainant and Sadashivappa, Banukumar, Mahadevappa and Gurubasappa who had accompanied the complainant. Complainant has no acquaintance with the witnesses who have attested the said on demand promissory note. But even then in order to defraud the complaint accused No.1 has filed the said suit that has caused mental agony and defamed the complainant. As such this private complainant came to be filed seeking for taking cognizance against accused No.1 and 2 for the above said of fences.

(3.) The case against accused No.2 was quashed by virtue of the order passed in Crl.P.No.7947/2009. As regards accused Nos.1 is concerned he was discharged from the offence punishable under Sections 463, 464 and 468 of IPC. But accused No.1 was prosecuted for offences punishable under Section 420 of IPC. Accused pleaded not guilty therefore the learned magistrate after trial of the case, based on the evidence available on record came to the conclusion that the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC is not proved against the accused therefore, the accused was acquitted for the said of fence.