C. Nageshwara Rao vs K. Mallikarjuna Rao

Vaman Rao, J.—This petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C seeks quashing of proceedings in Crime No.183/2000 registered at Police Station, Panjagutta, in which the petitioner is accused of offence under Sections 420 and 506 IPC.

The relevant allegations in the complaint on the basis of which this FIR was registered may be stated briefly as follows: that the petitioner agreed to sell certain house property in favour of the complainant. It was known that the property agreed to be sold was mortgaged in favour of Mahesh Co-operative Bank for certain loan, which was still outstanding. The petitioner agreed to clear that loan and obtained the entire sale consideration from the complainant. Subsequently, the petitioner executed another document in favour of the complainant described as supplemental agreement or notification deed in which the petitioner made a representation that the amount due to the Mahesh Co-operative bank has been cleared. It was later discovered by the complainant that the petitioner did in fact not clear the loan outstanding to the said bank.

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that these allegations do not constitute an offence u/s 420 IPC and that there is not even an allegation which may even remotely indicate an offence u/s 506 IPC. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 counters this contention by pointing out that it was on the specific undertaking on the part of the petitioner that he will clear the loan due under mortgage of the property under sale, that the complainant had purchased property and that omission to do so and deliberate misrepresentation that in fact loan has been cleared indicate offence u/s 420 IPC.

The allegation in the complaint go to show that inspite of knowledge on the part of the complainant that the property under sale was mortgaged in favour of a Bank and that some loan amount was still outstanding under that mortgage, the complainant appears to have not only agreed to purchase the property, but as averred in the complaint has paid the entire consideration on the basis of the representation by the petitioner that he will clear the loan out of the sale consideration obtained by him.

Cheating has been defined in Section 415 IPC. Under the first part of the Section 415 IPC if the accused has practiced deception by making false representation and fraudulently or dishonestly induced the person who deceived to deliver any property he can be said to have committed an offence of cheating. Under the second part if such false representation or deception practiced by the accused has induced a person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived can also be said to have committed the offence of cheating if the Act or omission alleged causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property.

In this case there are broad allegations in the complaint that go to show that on the basis of a specific representation by the petitioner-accused that out of the sale consideration he would clear the outstanding dues under the mortgage in respect of the property under sale that the complainant agreed and in fact paid the full sale consideration. Thus, it is possible to contend that but for this representation the complainant would have paid the entire consideration. The next question would be whether such representation was dishonest or fraudulent. It is very difficult to ascertain the intention of a person, but often such intentions can be inferred from the subsequent conduct of a person. In this case, the allegations in the complaint go to show that having made a representation that he would pay out of the sale consideration the amount due to the bank under the mortgage is not paid. Not only this he further made a false representation by entering into another agreement in which he asserted that he has in fact paid back the said amount due to the bank. In view of these allegations, It cannot be said that there are no ingredients of the offence of cheating as defined u/s 415 IPC.

It is necessary to note that in a petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C this Court is not required to microscopically examine the allegations in the complaint to ascertain each and every ingredient of an offence is satisfied or not. If the allegations in the complaint broadly indicate commission of some offence, this Court will not interdict the investigation process.

Considering these circumstances, this petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to move an application for anticipatory bail.