V K KHANNA Vs. GIRDHARI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S ./Sh. Girdhari lal and Bharat Bhushan, respondents herein, filed two separate complaints under sec. 420 -RPC against Sh. V. K. Khanna, petitioner herein, in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu who transferred the same to the court of City Magistrate Jammu. In the complaints, which are almost of similar nature, it has been alleged that an advertisement appeared in various national newspapers including Indian Express, that the petitioner herein was running a college of Correspondence and Training centre, styled as International College of Correspondence and after reading the advertisement which gave inducement regarding the said college to be in a position to help them to complete their further studies for overseer, as they were working as Draftsmen in Flood control Department, Jammu, they under such inducement paid Rs. 2400/ - each under separate receipts but afterwards when they personally visited the college at New Delhi found the college not only fictitious but also consisting of a gang to loot general public and innocent students. It has further been mentioned by the respondent -complainants in their complaints that they personally met the petitioner accused at New Delhi when nothing was done by him for them and the petitioner made a flat refusal to help or assist them in any manner for which money had been obtained. On receipt of complaints learned City Magistrate recorded statements of the complainants and one witness produced by each of them and finding prima facie case under sec. 420 -RPC made out against the petitioner -accused issued the process on Nov. 19, 1985 against him. Petitioner aggrieved by that order has filed the present petitions under sec. 561 -A Cr. P. C. for quashing the complaints.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is running a college of correspondence at New Delhi and in accordance with the prospectus petitioner was required to supply the respondents with certain lectures through correspondance which he did though at a late stage and in this manner petitioner cannot be said to have cheated the respondents in any manner. According to him in fact respondents defamed the petitioner by filing present complaints and also issuing some statements in the press for which petitioner had filed separate suits for damages against the respondents in a court at Delhi. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has contended that this court at this stage has only to see whether the complainants filed by the respondents disclose prima facie case of cheating against the petitioner and the facts alleged by the respondents lead to such conclusion. According to him the respondents who are ordinary employees as Draftsmen in the Flood control Department were made to part with an amount of Rs. 2400/ - each through an advertisement made by the petitioner in national news -paper and afterwards when the respondents finding nothing done for them by the petitioner visited the College at Delhi and found the petitioner non -cooperative and of no help in achieving the object for which advertisement had been made and money obtained. I have considered these contentions raised by either side.

(3.) SEC . 561 -A, Cr. P. C. authorises this court to invoke inherent powers to prevent the abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In this case thus this court is required to see whether the complaints filed by the respondents disclose prima facie case of cheating against the petitioner and in this respect the court is required to peruse various documents brought on record. Cheating has been defined in Sec. 415 -RPC and in order to constitute this offence it is required to be proved: -