RAM NARAIN AGGARWAL Vs. RAJENDRA KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ram Narain Agarwal accused-applicant has, through this application under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code desired quashing of complaint dated 15.9.80 filed by one Rajendra Kumar in his capacity as authorised representative of one Radhey Lal against the accused-applicant under Section 420, Indian Penal Code in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Agra. The said complaint is filed as - annexure 1 to the affidavit of the applicant filed in support of the present application.

(2.) A perusal of the said complaint shows that the accused applicant approached the complainant on 26.1.79 representing himself to be a partner of M/s. United Pulverisers Bodla, Agra and that his factory was running at huge profits. He represented that he was a credible businessman though at that time was in dire need of Rs. 5,000/- which, if advanced to him, would be returned after 90 days positively. The complainant believed those assertions and assurances of the accused applicant, and paid Rs. 5,000/- in cash to him on execution of a Hundi by him in favour of Radhey Lal. It was alleged that the accused applicant did not pay the said amount after 90 days, despite written and oral demands. He even misbehaved with the messenger of the complainant and denied execution of the said Hundi. Enquiries in the market about the accused-applicant disclosed that he was in the habit of cheating people in the like manner and he had no such business as alleged by him. The accused- applicant, therefore, knowingly and dishonestly made false assertions and assurances to induce the complainant to pay Rs. 5,000/- in cash to him. It was alleged that the intention of the accused was mala fide and dishonest from the very beginning, and he never entertained the idea of returning the amount. With these allegations the accused applicant was said to have committed an offence punishable under Section 420, Indian Penal Code for which the complaint was filed citing Hajari Lal, Bengali Mal, Radhey Lal and Arun Kumar as witnesses.

(3.) At the time of hearing the learned counsel for the applicant was absent - Only the learned counsel for the complainant apposite party (respondent) was heard. The present application is, therefore, being disposed of on its merits.