CHRISTRY AMIRTHAKANI Vs. JOSEPH PANDIARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondents 1 and 2 were prosecuted before the Court below, namely the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sathankulam in C.C.No.82 of 2005, for an alleged offence under Section 420 I.P.C. THE said case was instituted on a private complaint filed by the appellant herein. After following the procedure prescribed for taking cognizance of the offence on a private complaint, the learned Judicial Magistrate took the complaint as C.C.No.82 of 2005 and issued process.

(2.) ON appearance, the respondents herein/accused 1 and 2 pleaded ignorance. Necessary charge was framed and after having the charge read over and explained, they again pleaded not guilty. Consequently, a trial was held, in which the appellant herein/complainant deposed as P.W.1. In addition to P.W.1, her son-in-law by name Davidson was examined as P.W.2. Four documents were produced on the side of the appellant/complainant and marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P4. After necessary questioning under 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C., the accused were asked to enter upon their defence and the respondents/accused 1 and 2 chose to examine the Hand-writing Expert as D.W.1. Two series of documents were marked as Ex.D1(series) and Ex.D2(series) on the side of the respondents herein/accused 1 and 2.

(3.) THE case of the appellant/Complainant is that the appellant was having enough money in her hands out of the retirement benefits she had got on her retirement as a Teacher and the respondents/accused 1 and 2 with an intention to cheat her, approached her with a promise that they would induct her as partner in an establishment by name 'Balaji Finance', holding them to be the existing partners of the said financial establishment and made her to part with a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- with the hope of becoming a partner in the said partnership firm; that subsequently when she was not in receipt of the share in the profits, she made enquiries and to her shock and surprise, she came to know that no such financial establishment as 'Balaji Finance' was in existence at Ittamozhi; that thereafter the appellant/complainant chose to issue notice to the respondents 1 and 2 which were received by them; that the respondent, who received the notice did not even take care to send a reply notice either admitting or disputing the averments made in the notice and that thereafter only, the appellant/complainant was constrained to come forward with the private complaint for prosecuting the respondents and punishing them for an offence punishable under Section 420 I.P.C. According to the appellant's case, initially respondents 1 and 2 executed a Undertaking to enter into a partnership( Tl;L xg;ge;j cWjpbkhHpg;gj;jpuk;) on 23.08.2001 and Subsequently, on 10.02.2001, they received a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- and executed a receipt.