BHIMUDDU NARSHIMAHA KNNIYAPPAN Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri M.N.Narasimha Reddy, learned counsel representing the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and Sri D.Ramalinga Swami, learned counsel representing Respondent No.2.

(2.) Sri M.N.Narasimha Reddy, learned counsel representing the petitioner, would maintain that even if the allegations made in the charge sheet are to be taken on their face value, it may amount to breach of contractual obligation and hence definitely the provisions specified in the charge sheet under Sections 418 and 420 IPC are not attracted. Therefore, the cognizance of the offence taken by the learned Magistrate under Section 420 IPC cannot be sustained.

(3.) Per contra, Sri Ramalinga Swami learned counsel representing the respondent No.2, would maintain that it is a clear case of cheating and hence, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC. The learned counsel also would maintain that even otherwise, these are all factual aspects, which may have to be gone into at the appropriate stage and hence the same need not be interfered with under Section 482 Cr.P.C.