UNNIE MENON Vs. KERALA FILM ARTISTS CRITICS SOCIETY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a play back singer. A society called Kerala Film Artists and Critics Society, selected him as the best Malayalam play back singer for the year 1985. The President of the said Society filed a complaint against the petitioner and another person alleging that they committed an offence of cheating against the Society. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Trivandrum before whom, the complaint was filed, took cognizance of the offence under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and issued process to the petitioner. Thereupon, the petitioner has come up with this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) The facts disclosed in the complaint read thus: The Society used to celebrate Award NightsT with variety entertainments etc. and awards are given away during those celebrations for the best Malayalam film of the year and also the best artists in cinematography. The petitioner was selected as the best Malayalam play back singer for the year 1985. An Award Night was arranged to be Bold in the University Senate Hall, Trivandrum on 16.2.1986 in which the presentation of awards to the winners would be made. The petitioner was informed of this over the phone and in reply thereto the petitioner told the complainant that he would then perform a music concert (Ganamela) free of cost during the Award Night. He requested the complainant to make arrangements to get the assistance of an Orchestra to play the back ground music. The complainant in turn made arrangements with Ajantha Orchestra of Trivandrum to play the back ground when songs are sung by the petitioner. A sum of Rs. 1,000/- was paid to the petitioner towards his conveyance and other incidental expenses as demanded by him. The petitioner sent a list to the complainant regarding the songs intended to be presented to the audience during the Award Night. The petitioner reached Trivandrum on the date of the Award Night but he informed the complainant that he was not ready to present the music/concert. He resiled from his earlier promise and did not present the programmed. According to the complainant the petitioner did so with the fraudulent and dishonest intention to cause damage to the Society and also to cause harm to the reputation of the Society. Complainant further says that the Society consequently sustained huge loss of money as also loss of reputation. On these allegations, the respondent filed the complaint.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the complaint does not disclose any offence, much less the offence of cheating as defined in section 415 of the I.P.C. and hence the Chief Judicial Magistrate was in error in taking cognizance of the offence of cheating. It cannot be doubted that, if the complaint does not disclose an offence, (either an offence of cheating or any other offence) cognizance ought not have been taken on that complaint. Nor can it be doubted that if cognizance was taken in spite of it and if this Court is informed of it, this Court has the jurisdiction to interfere in exercise of the powers under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Vide Delhi Municipality v. Ram Kishan1