GOPALAKRISHNAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the accused in C.C.No. 267 of 1989 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, No. 2, Thiruthani. As per the allegations in the complaint, the petitioner approached complainant Manakchand Jain during 1987-88 and requested him to subscribe a chit run by him. Believing his words, the complainant joined the chit of Rs. 40,000 group. He was regularly paying the subscriptions. He was a successful bidder in the auction held six months prior to the complaint However, the petitioner did not pay the chit amount inspite of repeated requests. Though he promised to hand over the money within two or three days, he did not keep up the promise. Besides, when the complainant warned the petitioner that he would take action against him, the latter gave out a promise that he would secure employment to his unemployed son. THE complainant issued a lawyer's notice on 30.5.1988 demanding the money. Though the petitioner received the notice, he sent neither any reply nor repaid the money. On the basis of this complaint a charge sheet under Sec.420, I.P.C. was filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Thiruthani against the petitioner on 21.5.1989.

(2.) THE petitioner seeks to quash the proceedings against him for the reason that Manakchand Jain preferred a private complaint against him before J.F.C.M., Thiruthani for an offence punishable under Sec. 420, I.P.C. Learned Magistrate forwarded the complaint to the Sub-Inspector of Police (Crime), Thiruthani for investigation and report under Sec.166(3), Crl.P.C. THE Sub-Inspector received the complaint and registered it as Crime No. 1276 of 1988 of his station under Sec. 420, I.P.C. A perusal of the charge sheet filed against him as well as the records under Sec. 161, Crl.P.C. would disclose that even if they are taken on their face value, no offence is made out against him.

(3.) LEARNED Additional Public Prosecutor contended that Illustration (f) to Sec. 415, I.P.C. covers the case on hand. As per this illustration, if A, intentionally deceives Z into a belief that a means to repay any money that Z may lend to him and thereby dishonestly induces Z to lend him money, A not intending to repay it - A cheats. Evidently this cannot help the prosecution since as I have already pointed out, there is no dishonest inducement in the action of the petitioner requesting the complainant to subscribe to the chit.