AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Arali Nagaraj, J.—Though this matter is listed today for admission, it is taken for final disposal by the consent of Sri. Fahad M Ali, the learned Counsel for the petitioner-accused and Sri. Vijaykumar Majage, the learned High Court Government Pleader. The petitioner herein who is the only accused in FIR No. 39/2010 of Chamarajpet Police Station, Bangalore, which is pending on the file of the learned I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, has sought for quashing of the investigation in the said case.
The said FIR came to be issued against the present petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 417, 465, 471, 467 of IPC and also under Sections 74, 67 & 67A of Information Technology Act, 2000. The said crime came to be registered for the said offences on the basis of the complaint filed by 3rd respondent herein, namely. Sri. P. Achuthan Kutty resident of Chamrajpet, Bangalore.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner-accused contends that this petitioner is totally stranger to the respondent-complainant and therefore, the entire allegations made in the complaint are totally false and they are made wit hoot any basis and hence the investigation in the said case deserves to be quashed.
Per Contra, Sri. Vijaykumar Majage, the learned High Court Government Pleader, contends that the averments in the said complaint, taken at their face value, constitute the offences punishable under Sections 420, 417, 465, 471 & 467 of IPC and the offences under Information Technology Act for which FIR has been registered and therefore the investigation cannot be quashed at the threshold.
On careful reading of the averments in the said complaint, it could be seen that the petitioner accused received from the respondent-complainant a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-, promising that the complainant would get return of the said amount along with a profit @ 1% per day, but he failed to keep up the said promise. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner-accused is alleged to have made false representation to the complainant that if the complainant could give him a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-, the complainant would get in return, a profit @ 1% of the said amount everyday. After taking the said sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-, from the complainant, he did not keep up the said promise. Thus, it is clear that these averments prima facie constitute the offence of cheating which is cognizable.
It is the settled principle, that only where the averments in the complaint filed by the compliant before the police do not prima facie constitute any cognizable offence, power u/s 482 Cr.P.C can be exercised for quashing the Investigation at its commencement itself. Since the averments in the complaint in the instant case, constitute the offences under Sections 420, 417 etc., for which FIR has been registered the investigation in the said case cannot be quashed at this initial stage only.
For the reasons aforesaid, the present petition filed u/s 482 Cr.P.C seeking quashing of investigation in Crime No. 39/2010 of Chamrajpet Police Station, Bangalore, is hereby dismissed as being devoid of merits. However, if the charge sheet, is filed against the petitioner for all or any of the alleged offences the petitioner would be at liberty to seek his discharge before the Trial Court, in accordance with law.