LAWS(KER)-2014-3-137

SINDHU Vs. STATE OF KERALA

Decided On March 21, 2014
SINDHU Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KERALA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners herein are the accused in C.C.No. 206/2009 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court -I, Neyyattinkara. The offences alleged against them are under Sections 420 and 506 IPC. The crime in this case was registered on the complaint of one Jamma Titus, who is the 2nd respondent herein. Her complaint is that on a false promise to provide job abroad the 2nd petitioner herein had received an amount of 4,00,000/ - from her deceased husband, and her husband was also taken to Singapore, on the basis of the said promise. But her husband had to return when he could not obtain any job as promised by the 2nd petitioner, and thus the 2nd petitioner cheated her deceased husband. When demands were made repeatedly the 2nd petitioner issued two cheques out of which one was bounced due to insufficiency of funds. Her complaint contains a definite allegation that the amount of 4,00,000/ - was received by the 2nd petitioner under a false promise to arrange job abroad, or with dishonest intention of extracting money from her husband.

(2.) THE petitioners have brought this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the prosecution as against them in C.C.No. 206/2009.

(3.) HOWEVER , a reading of the complaint preferred by the 2nd petitioner will show that she has some grievance as against the 2nd petitioner, who is the 2nd accused in the case. Whether he had any dishonest intention when he received huge amount from the husband of the 2nd respondent, or whether the promise made by him to arrange job was in fact a false promise, are all matters to be looked into by the trial court. It is admitted that on persistent demands, the 2nd petitioner had issued two cheques; one for 2,00,000/ - and the other for 1,85,000/ -. The complainant alleges that the cheque for 2,00,000/ - was bounced due to insufficiency of funds. In view of the fact that the 2nd petitioner had issued two cheques in discharge of the liability, or towards payment of the amount allegedly received by him, it is a matter to be looked into by the trial court whether the 2nd petitioner really had any intention to cheat, or whether he received the amount with such a dishonest intention. Any way let these matters be looked into by the trial court. If the 2nd petitioner is confident that he received the amount under a genuine promise with the confidence that he could arrange a job abroad, but he could not provide job due to some circumstances or reason beyond his control, he can very well convince the learned Magistrate, regarding all these aspects and make a plea for discharge. In the circumstances where some allegations are there against him in the complainant the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C cannot be exercised to quash the proceedings against the 2nd petitioner. However, without prejudice to his right to plea for discharge before the trial court, his request to quash the prosecution against him can be disallowed.