C SRINIVAS HIMAVANT Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.322 of 2004 on the file of the XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, which was registered under Sections 420, 406 and 468 IPC.

(2.) The allegations in the complaint are that on 5-1-2004. L.W.1 lodged a complaint alleging that the accused approached L.Ws.1 and 2 during October, 2003 in Hyderabad and dishonestly induced them to pay an amount of Rs.47 lakhs by misrepresenting himself as he had good contacts and influence in India and abroad and by promising that he provide. L.W.1 job work worth Rs.90 crores, that his firm M/s. Ameya Systems entered a Memorandum of understanding with Satyam Computer Services Ltd. and LIC of India to execute data conversion project, etc., in joint with M/s. Satyam Computer Services Ltd., a project worth Rs.90 crores, that L.W.1 remitted Rs.47 lakhs into the Bank account of the accused, that the accused gave a cheque for Rs.5 crores bearing No.612926, dated 29-12-2003 drawn in favour of L.W.1 to keep L.W.1 in good faith and belief, that later the accused failed to provide the said projects and on verification it was found that accused breached the trust of L.W.1, cheated him to a tune of Rs.17 lakhs by fraudulently creating and showing forged document allegedly existed between accused and Satyam Computer Services Ltd., as LIC of India. Hence L.W.1 requested to take necessary legal action against the accused.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has not misrepresented to the effect that he was entered into Memorandum of understanding with Satyam Computers and if that fact has been stated to the complainant, the same should have been found place in the Joint Venture Agreement entered into between the accused and the de facto complainant on 28-11-2003, that the petitioner is disputing such statement, that the alleged copy of agreement is fabricated by the de facto complainant himself and it is purely a commercial transaction which culminates the criminal prosecution so as to score the dispute so that the de facto complainant would get back the amount, that even if the entire allegations in the complaint are taken as true and correct, they do not make out prima facie case of the offences under Sections 420,406 and 468, that there is no allegation that the accused has entertained dishonest intention at the time of making promise and therefore, it is nothing but abuse of process of Court.