M F H KHAN NAYYAR Vs. MOHD BABAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal petition is filed by the accused in CC.No.716 of 2000, on the file of the IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, to quash the proceedings therein.

(2.) The brief facts of the case giving rise to filing of this petition by the accused in CC No.716 of 2000 are as follows: The first respondent herein is the complainant in CC No.716 of 2000. He filed a complaint against the petitioner alleging that he promised to provide certain facilities at Mecca and Madina and on his assurance, the first respondent paid a sum of Rs. 1,30,000/- in cash towards expenses for himself and his wife. It is further averred that the petitioner failed to provide necessary accommodation in Mecca and Madina and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Initially, a complaint filed by the first respondent before the IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad was referred to police under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code for investigation. The police, after due investigation, filed a final report stating that the dispute is of civil nature. Thereupon, the first respondent-complainant filed a protest petition. The learned Magistrate recorded the sworn statements of the first respondent-complainant and the witnesses produced by him and took the complaint on file as CC No.716 of 2000 and issued summons. The petitioner-accused entered appearance and filed Crl.MP No. 11174 of 2001 seeking discharge. The learned Magistrate dismissed the said petition by order dated 14-2-2002. Assailing the order, the accused filed Crl.RP No.95 of 2002, on the file of the I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the criminal revision petition by order dated 19-7-2002. Hence, this criminal petition to quash the proceedings in CC No.716 of 2000.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that even if the entire allegation are taken at their face value, no offence under Section 420 IPC has been made out and, therefore, the proceedings against the petitioner in CC No.716 of 2000 are liable to be quashed.