PEDDINTI PADMAJA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners 1 and 2/A-1 and A-2 are accused of offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 I.P.C in Crime No.136/2009 of Gajuwaka Police Station, Visakhapatnam. On report given by the 2nd respondent/defacto- complainant, the police registered the said crime. It is alleged that the 2nd respondent deposited Rs.1,00,000/- in M/s.Velox Computer Services (P) Limited, Visakhapatnam, for his computer training under an agreement executed between them and that as per the agreement, if the Company removes the 2nd respondent during the training period of 18 months, then the Company has to pay back the deposit and that in pursuance of the said agreement, the Company removed the 2nd respondent within 18 months of period of training by issuing a cheque for Rs.1,00,000/- to him and that when he presented the cheque, it was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds and that when he went to office of the Company, the Company was closed by locking it and without disclosing their address. The petitioners are promoters of the Company.

(2.) It is contended by the petitioners' counsel that the petitioners' Company was franchisee of M/s.Satyam Computers for imparting training for 18 months to the candidates and that due to global recession and due to Satyam crisis, the petitioners could not impart training to the 2nd respondent completely and that therefore, they issued cheque for Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioner and that in case the cheque is dishonoured, then the 2nd respondent's remedy is elsewhere and not in the police station and that the case is one which is purely of civil nature and that there are no ingredients/statutory facts constituting offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 I.P.C.

(3.) There is no dispute about the 2nd respondent giving Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioners for imparting training for 18 months. There is no dispute about the petitioners not being able to impart training and committing default. There is also no dispute about the petitioners drawing cheque for Rs.1,00,000/- in favour of the 2nd respondent towards repayment of the deposit amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in terms of agreement between the parties. Thus, there is absolutely no dispute about entrustment of Rs.1,00,000/- by the 2nd respondent to the petitioners and about they appropriating the same for themselves. When there was no sufficient balance in their account, giving cheque for Rs.1,00,000/- in favour of the 2nd respondent should not have been resorted to and particularly when the petitioners knew about existence of global recession and Satyam crisis. No doubt, dishonour of cheque for Rs.1,00,000/- drawn by the petitioners in favour of the 2nd respondent, would lead to an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. But, at the same time, it cannot be said that the 2nd respondent cannot resort to lodging report alleging offences under I.P.C also in case necessary statutory facts for prosecuting the petitioners exist.