Decided on July 20,2003



- (1.) The accused is the petitioner. He prays that the criminal prosecution initiated against him by the 2nd respondent/complainant under S.420 of the Indian Penal Code may be quashed.
(2.) The complainant had initiated proceedings by filing a private complaint. The gist of the allegations raised by him in the complaint is that the accused had indulged in the offence of cheating. It was a transaction in landed property. The accused had obtained property under Ext. P3 document in the year 1973. He claims to be in possession of the remaining extent of property. He induced the petitioner to believe that the remaining extent - an extent of 9 1/2 cents is available with him. Making the accused/his mother believe that he has 9 1/2 cents of 12 cents acquired by him under Ext. P3 after excluding the 2 1/2 cents sold by him, he induced him to pay the price thereof and take Ext. P1 assignment in the name of the mother of the complainant. The mother of the complainant died and the complainant is the legal heir of his mother. The complainant has now come to realise that the accused had fraudulently suppressed the execution of Ext. P8 document prior to the execution of Ext. P1 document. Under that document Ext. P8, the accused had transferred 3.75 cents of land to another. In short, the contention is that while entering into the sale transaction with the mother of the accused, the accused had fraudulently suppressed the fact that he had already assigned 3.75 cents of land under Ext. P8 to another and had made a false representation that the entire property acquired under Ext. P8 less 2 1/2 cents which he had already assigned do belong to him and was in his exclusive possession. On coming to know Ext. P8, the de facto complainant had preferred the complaint.
(3.) Pre charge enquiry was conducted. After adducing evidence, the learned Magistrate considered the question whether the accused is entitled to be discharged. The Court came to the conclusion that the complainant has succeeded in establishing such a case which if unrebutted would warrant of a conviction. Accordingly, the learned Magistrate did not discharge the accused; but held that the charges are liable to be framed. This order is assailed before me in this proceedings.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.