SREEKUMAR BHASKARAN PILLAI Vs. SURESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges the order dated 02.08.2006 in C.M.P.No. 7251 of 2004 on the file of the court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Karunagappally by which the complaint filed by the petitioner was dismissed under section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure . Since the complaint was dismissed under section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, I do not think it is necessary to issue notice to the first respondent.

(2.) Heard Public Prosecutor for the second respondent. The case of the complainant in the complaint is that on 28th October, 2003, the accused sought financial assistance from the complainant for a sum of Rs. Two lakhs. The complainant agreed to arrange necessary funds. On 01.11.2003, the accused met the complainant and the complainant had paid Rs. Two lakhs to the accused It is further stated in the complaint thus:

(3.) The court below proceeded on the basis that since the cheque was a post dated cheque, no offence under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is made out . It was held by the court below that there is no case for the complainant that the accused deceived and induced him to pay Rs. Two lakhs on the representation that he would issue a cheque. The court below proceeded on the basis that the cheque was issued at a later point of time after the date of receipt of cash. On a reading of the complaint as a whole, it cannot be said that the cheque was issued at a later point of time. Yet another reason stated by the court below is that the complainant was a money lender. It is also held that the fact that the cheque was dishonoured on the ground of difference in signature, is a ground to infer that the cheque was not executed properly. The court below held that at any rate, payment of cash to the accused was not due to inducement made by the accused that he would issue the disputed cheque.