P SUBASH CHANDRAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the accused in the case C.C.No.2525/2012 pending before the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Tirur. The petition is filed by him to quash the proceedings in the case, by invoking the power of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code').

(2.) The prosecution against the petitioner was initiated on the basis of the complaint filed by the second respondent before the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Tirur which was forwarded to the police under Section 156(3) of the Code for investigation. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, Crime No.77/2012 (Annexure-A2) of Tirur police station was registered against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. After completing the investigation, the police filed Annexure-A3 final report (charge sheet) against the petitioner for the aforesaid offence. The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence and numbered the case as C.C.No.2525/2012.

(3.) The material allegations in the complaint (Annexure-A1) filed by the second respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the complainant') against the petitioner are as follows: The petitioner made the complainant to believe that he is the distributor of the soft drink by name "Pep Up Black Label" and that the complainant would be appointed as the distributor of the aforesaid drink in Malappuram District if he gave Rs.5,00,000/- as security deposit. On the basis of this representation made by the petitioner, the complainant gave him an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- as security deposit. The petitioner also told the complainant that distributors for the drink were not available in Kozhikode District and he demanded an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- as security deposit for appointing the complainant as the distributor of the drink in Kozhikode District. Thus, the complainant gave a total amount of Rs.10,00,000/- as security deposit for appointing him as the distributor of the drink in Malappuram and Kozhikode Districts. On many occasions, the petitioner did not use to supply soft drink as per the order given by the complainant. The complainant had told the petitioner that if he did not supply the drink as per the order given, it could not be sold by him. Even then, the petitioner did not send the complainant the stock required for supply in the aforesaid two districts. Then, the complainant demanded the petitioner to return the amount of Rs.10,00,000/- given as security deposit. However, the petitioner did not repay the amount of Rs.10,00,000/- to the complainant and he has cheated the complainant.