AMMINI AMMA Vs. SUKUMARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused in C. C. 189 of 1980 on the file of the chief Judicial Magistrate. Palghat seeks the quashing of the proceedings, under s. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

(2.) THE complaint alleges that on 5-4-80 the accused and her husband Krishnan Nair met the complainant and offered to exchange a Vauxall car worth Rs. 4000/- fora Plymouth car belonging to the complainant. THE Plymouth car was valued at Rs. 20,000/ -. THE accused and her husband agreed to pay Rs 16,000/-in ten days. Vauxall car and the papers were delivered. Plymouth car was also delivered, though the papers were not delivered. THE accused failed to pay the balance amount within 10 days. It appears that Krishnan Nair died on 24-4-80 THE complainant grew suspicious and met the accused and demanded payment of money on several occasions. But the accused was putting forward one excuse or the other and making vague promise. Finally the complainant asked for the return of the car even if the money is not paid. THE accused told the complainant that under no circumstances will the money be paid and the car returned even if it be that the car will have to be dismantled THEse allegations in the complaint are followed by a further averment

(3.) THE scheme and purport of S. 200, 203 and 204 of the code are not sufficient to show that the averments in the complaint are not to be looked into for the purpose of taking a decision either to dismiss a complaint under S. 203 or to issue process under S 204 of the Code. This is made clear by the reference in S. 203 to the words "if any" occurring after the words "statement on oath of the complainant". This makes it clear that complaint is also, at any rate, one of the records to be looked into for the purpose of taking a decision under S. 203 and 204 of the Code It cannot be said that Court can look into the sworn statement only and not the complaint itself.