(1.) These two Criminal Petitions have been filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings in Crime No. 144 of 1999 on the file of Narayanaguda police station. The petitioner in Crl. P. No. 2776/99 is the accused No. 1 and the petitioner in Crl. P. No. 2064 of 1999 are accused Nos. 2 to 4 in the said first information report.
(2.) It appears that the de facto complainant filed a complaint under Section 200, Cr.P.C. before the XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad who referred the matter under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. to Narayanaguda police for investigation. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that a reading of the complaint would disclose that the dispute between the accused and the de facto complainant is purely of civil nature inasmuch as the de facto complainant has advanced a loan to the accused No. 1 which was not repaid. The counsel further contended that the ingredients of the offence of cheating as defined under Section 145, I.P.C. are not spelled out and as such no offence under S. 420, IPC is made out. The first information report recorded on the basis of the complaint forwarded to the police mentions the offences under Sections 419, 420 and 425, I.P.C. Obviously the offence under Section 425, I.P.C. is not attracted as there is no allegation in the complaint in respect of any mischief. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the transaction between the accused and the de facto complainant is of a simple straightforwarded loan and simply because the accused allegedly failed to repay the loan in itself does not constitute an offence of cheating as defined under Section 415, I.P.C.
(3.) The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, contends that the allegations in the complaint disclose that it was not a straightforward loan transaction but the de facto complainant was induced to advance the loan because of fraudulent misrepresentation by the accused. It contains the following allegations :