CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Yada Anjaneyulu vs State of A.P. and Another

Andhra Pradesh High Court · Decided on 30 December 1999 · Citation: (2000) 2 CivCC 533 : (2000) 2 RCR(Criminal) 879

HON’BLE JUDGES
J. Chelameswar, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI) — Section 138 · Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 107, 420
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Petition No. 3387 of 1999
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 347 words

J. Chelameswar, J.—The petitioner is the second accused in Crime No. 86 of 1999 on the file of the Sircilla Police station, Karimanagar District. The second respondent herein, which is a Finance Company lodged a complaint with the police stating that the petitioner along with another person approached the second respondent for a loan of Rs. 1,50,000/-. Accordingly the loan was granted. Thereafter the money was never paid. In fact the first accused, it appears, issued a cheque towards repayment of loan amount which was dishonored on account of non-availability of funds in the account of the accused. In the circumstances the complaint was lodged alleging that the petitioner and the other accused committed an offence u/s 420 read with Section 107, IPC and Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The present petition is filed u/s 482, Cr.P.C. to quash the First Information Report in the above crime.

2.

The Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the transaction is purely of a civilian nature but the proceedings under criminal law are not call for. On the other hand, the Learned Counsel for the respondent relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in Rajesh Bajaj Vs. State NCT of Delhi and Others, wherein the Supreme Court observed as follows:

It may be that the facts narrated in the present complaint would as well reveal a commercial transaction or money transaction. But that is hardly a reason for holding trial the offence of cheating would elude from such a transaction. In fact many a cheating were committed in the course of commercial and also money transactions. One of the illustrations set out u/s 415, IPC is worthy of notice now:

A intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A means to repay any money that Z may lend to him and thereby dishonestly induces Z to lend him money. A not intending to repay it. A cheats.

3.

In the circumstances of the case and in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court, I see no merit in the petition. Criminal Petition is accordingly dismissed.