MEENA R SAMPATH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS O.P. has been brought forth by the petitioner, who faces trial in C.C. No. 286 of 2004 which was taken cognizance by the Judicial Magistrate No. II, Dindigul, under Sections 406 and 420 of I.P.C.

(2.) THE de facto complainant gave a complaint alleging that it rendered service to M/s. Sri Venkatesa Paper and Boards Ltd. for which there was a liability of Rs. 7,47,500 payable to the de facto complainant; that on the request of M/s. Sri Venkatesa Paper and Boards Ltd., through its Directors, the same was deposited in the fixed deposit, on the promise to return the same on maturity; that the same was also matured on 8.5.2001; that there was a further promise of returning the same with interest; that it was again renewed for one year; that despite the maturity of the same, it was not repaid, and hence, it has become necessary to initiate proceedings. On receipt of the complaint, a case came to be registered by the State through the first respondent police under Sections 406 and 420 of I.P.C., and subsequently, it was taken cognizance by the Judicial Magistrate as Calendar Case referred to above.

(3.) THE learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would further add that it was a deposit made; that there is nothing to indicate that at the time of making the deposit or getting the deposit, the petitioner had got any mens rea to cheat; that so long as it is not shown, the complaint for cheating has to fall; that there is no question of any entrustment, which would attract the provisions of the I.P.C., which would penalize the breach of trust, and thus, the penal provisions of Sections 406 and 420 of I.P.C. would not be attracted under the facts of the case, and hence, the proceedings pending in the hands of the lower Court, have got to be quashed.