YELLANURU VENKATA RAMANAIAH Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of proceedings in Cr.No. 74 of 1999 registered at P.S. Badwel in which the petitioner is accused of an offence under Section 420.. IPC.

(2.) Smt. N. Shobha, the learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the allegations made in the complaint filed before the police do not make out the ingredients of the offence under Section 420, IPC. It is further contended that there is nothing to show that the accused had any dishonest intention. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, contends that the allegations are sufficient to constitute an offence under Section 420, IPC. to appreciate these rival contentions, the crucial facts as narrated in the complaint may be looked at. It is stated that the complainant had received some money towards compensation for his lands. Out of it at the request of the accused he gave loan of Rs. 95,000-00 and got executed three promissory notes in his name. Later, the complainant came to know that the accused had been cheating other people. Thereupon he went to the accused and asked him to repay the loan amount with interest saying that he intended the money for constructing a house. It is stated that the accused pleaded with the complainant that at present he was not in a position to repay the amount and that he would pledge gold ornaments and after one year he would repay the amount and take back the gold ornaments. It appears that on this, the complainant obtained the gold ornaments from the accused and tore away the promissory notes executed by the accused in his favour. Thereafter the complainant discovered that the gold ornaments pledged with him by the accused were fake and they did not contain gold. Thereafter he went to the accused and told him that he would file a case against him. Thereupon the accused somehow convinced him and executed three promissory notes. Thereafter when the accused (sic. complainant) demanded the payments under the promissory notes, the accused threatened him.

(3.) From these allegations, it would appear that at one stage in the whole transaction when the complainant insisted for payment of the loan amount under the three promissory notes, the accused pledged some gold ornaments purported to be of gold which induced the complainant to tear away the promissory notes executed by the accused. Thereafter, it was discovered that the so-called gold ornaments were fake and did not contain gold in it. This shows, as per the allegations in the complaint, that on the pleding of the so called gold ornaments, in other words on the representation by the accused that the ornaments pledged by him were of gold, the complainant was induced to tear away the promissory notes. The subsequent acceptance of promissory notes by the complainant does not alter the nature of earlier acts of the accused. Thus, it would appear that in view of the representation of the accused, the complainant has done something namely, tearing of the promissory notes, which he would not have done but for such dishonest representation. From these allegations it cannot be said at this stage that the ingredients of the offence under Section 420, IPC are not made out at all. At any rate, in a petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. it is not permissible to microscopically examine whether every aspect of each and every ingredient of offence has been made out or not. Suffice it to say that the allegations in the complaint in this case do make out that some offence, prima facie, has been committed. Under these circumstances, this petition is dismissed. The observations made in this order have been so made strictly for the purpose of dealing with this petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. and are not meant to express any opinion of this Court on the questions which are likely to fall for consideration before the trial Court during the trial.