DEVARPALLI VEDA NAYAKAM Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who is the accused, seeks to quash the proceedings in CC No.624 of 2001 on the file of the III Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, Krishna District, by invoking inherent powers.

(2.) A brief resume of the background of the facts, is necessary: The petitioner herein is the correspondent of SCUP, School, Kuddusnagar, Vijayawada. The 2nd respondent studied MA, BEd., She approached the petitioner in the year 1994 and requested to provide a job in the school. It is alleged that he demanded an amount of Rs.85,000/- to give the teacher post. It is also alleged that as she has given Rs.30,000/- in the month of September, 1994 and Rs. 10,000/- in the next month, she has received an interview card in the month of October, 1995 and after interviewing her on 19-10-1995, she has been appointed as B.Ed., (Social) Assistant on a monthly salary of Rs.2,525/-. The petitioner took an amount of Rs.20,000/- in the month of March, 1996. The main grievance of the 2nd respondent, is that the petitioner promised her to give aided post and the amounts have been collected and her salary has not been paid during the period of two and half years she worked and later, she has resigned. It is also alleged that she was cheated. Thereupon, she gave a report, which lead to filing of charge-sheet by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Law and Order, S.N. Puram Police Station, Vijayawada. The learned Magistrate took the cognizance of the offence under Section 420 IPC. The petitioner who is the accused, seeks quashing of these proceedings by preferring this petition. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the averments in the complaint, do not constitute an offence under Section 420 IPC and while placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in S.N, Palanitakar v. State of Bihar, AIR 2001 SC 2960, it is also contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that mere failure to keep up the promise subsequently, does not constitute an offence. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that non-payment of salary as alleged, is false one and he is having receipts obtained from the 2nd respondent herein.

(3.) The learned Public Prosecutor contends that it is a case where misrepresentation has been made, which led to filing a charge-sheet and hence, it constitutes an offence publishable under Section 420 IPC.