R N BABA Vs. SHEEBA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the petitioner / accused in C.C.No.197 of 2006 on the file of the District Musif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur, seeking an order to quash the criminal proceeding.

(2.) MR.A.H.Srikanth, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner herein is the Honorary Secretary of Dr.Rabindran's Nalvazhvu Sangam, a registered society, running Hospital at Chennai and he is arrayed as accused in the case in C.C.No.197 of 2006 on a private complaint filed by the respondent herein for the alleged offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 420 of Indian Penal Code. According to the petitioner, one Haish Naidu, a staff of the Hospital run by the petitioner sangam misusing the cheque leaf had issued the cheque for Rs.1,50,000/- drawn on the UTI Bank Ltd., Anna Nagar in favour of the respondent / complainant towards mediclaim premium payable to her. While the cheque was presented for payment, it was returned by the bank with an endorsement that the signature of the account-holder differs, in such circumstances, according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the complaint itself is not maintainable and therefore, he pleaded that the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner before the court below be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In support of his contention, the learned counsel cited the decision, Vinod Tanna vs. Zaher Siddiqui, reported in 2002 (7) SCC 541, wherein the Honourable Supreme Court has held that an incomplete signature will not attract Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

(3.) IT is not in dispute that cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property is sufficient to attract Section 420 IPC. In R.S. Nayak vs. A.R. Antulay, reported in 1986 (2) SCC 716, the Honourable Supreme Court has held at page number 768 as under :"68. Section 415 actually consists of two parts, each part dealing with one way of cheating :1. Where, by deception practised upon a person the accused dishonestly or fraudulently induces that person to deliver property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any property2. Where, by deception practised upon a person, the accused intentionally induces that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit to do, if he were not so deceived and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property."Wherein it was ruled by the Honourable Apex Court that prima facie case was made out against the accused by the prosecution in respect of the allegations for the charges under Sections 120 B and 420 IPC, apart from other sections, but the trial court had failed to frame necessary charges for the trial of the case and therefore, charge under Section 420 IPC should be framed by the trial court against the accused therein.