D. SURYA RAO Vs. LIAQUAT ALI KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Sections 439 and 561 -A, Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Complaint Case No. 63 of 1973 which is pending trial in the Court of the S.D.M. at Nowrangpur.

(2.) THE opposite party is a resident of Nowrangpur in the district of Koraput. For the purchase of a T.M.B. chassis he approached the Andhra General Finance Corporation (Sri Ram Das Motor Transport Private Limited) of Kakinada and entered into a hire purchase agreement. It was stipulated that the amount of Rs. 68, 000/ - and odd would be paid in equal monthly installments of Rs. 2730/ - to the financier until the total liability was liquidated. The arrangement was that the instalments would be paid by bank draft. The first four instalments were paid in time; but there was default in the matter of payment of the 5th and the 6th instalments. On 4 -6 -1972, the Petitioner who is the accused before the learned Magistrate came to Nowrangpur and represented to the hire -purchaser (complainant) that if he would pay the 5th and the 6th instalments in cash to him he would obtain a clearance certificate in condonation of the default and regularise the matter. As the complainant was not immediately in a position to pay the amount he wanted a day 's time, but the accused said that he had to proceed to Chitrakonda on work and required the complainant to come with the money to Kakinada so that the work would be done in the manner indicated by him. On 6 -6 -1972, the complainant along with some of his relations proceeded to Kakinada and paid the money to the accused who happens to be the managing partner of the firm. The money was received and the accused represented to the complainant that a regular receipt would be sent later. The complainant and his relations returned, but when no acknowledgment came the complainant 's father sent a telegram for the formal receipt. On 4 -7 -1972, the complainant was informed by the accused that he had not received the payment of Rs. 5460/ -. It was followed by a letter where there was denial of receipt of the amount and seizure of the vehicle and forfeiture of the previous instalments paid was threatened. On 9 -8 -1972, the complainant with a relation proceeded to Kakinada and contacted the accused. He was adamant and indifferent and stated that he had not received the 5th and the 6th instalments, and, therefore, cancelled the agreement and forfeited the amount already paid towards loss and damages. Thereupon on 11 -10 -1972 the opposite party lodged a complaint -before the S.D.M. Nowrangpur alleging commission of an offence of cheating punishable under Section 420, Indian Penal Code by the Petitioner.

(3.) POINT No. - (1) -Mr. Mohanty for the Petitioner has contended that on the allegations made out in the petition of complaint the offence, if any, must be found to have taken place at Kakinada beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate. Therefore, the S.D.M. of Nowrangpur could not have taken cognizance of the case and is incompetent to try the offence. Mr. Mohapatra for the complainant on the other hand has contended that as the petition of complaint shows a part of the cause of action certainly arose within the jurisdiction of the Court at Nowrangpur and, therefore, cognizance has been properly taken.