Back
TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
B. Satyanarayana Rao – Appellant
Versus
State Of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
ORDER :
Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao, J.
The quoted Criminal petition is filed to call for the records pertaining to C.C. No.670 of 2019 on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Mobile Court), Kurnool and to quash the same.
2. The 2nd respondent/complainant has filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C (for short Code). to take cognizance under Section 190 of the Code for the offence punishable under Sections 354, 384, and 420 IPC, before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Mobile Court), Kurnool.
3. Learned Magistrate has referred the matter to the police under Section 156 (3) of the Code, to exercise powers under Section 156(1) of the Code to investigate the case. The police after investigation have filed final report referring the case as false.
4. Aggrieved by the action of the police, the 2nd respondent/complainant filed a Protest Petition before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kurnool. The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance for the offence under Section 420 IPC against accused Nos. 8 to 12 and dismissed complaint against accused Nos.1 to 7 and against accused Nos.13 and 14 under Section 203 of the Code.
5. Aggrieved in dismissing the Protest Petition
No prima facie case for cheating under Section 420 IPC was established as there was no evidence of deception or dishonest inducement.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the absence of dishonest intention and the essential elements of cheating under Section 420 IPC led to the dismissal of the complaint under Se....
No cheating absent deception from transaction's inception; mere salary shortfall not offence. Sections 504/506 require provocation for breach of peace or threat of injury with alarm-causing intent – ....
Inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly to prevent abuse of process, and allegations must disclose a cognizable offence for proceedings to continue.
The court quashed proceedings for cheating and intimidation, finding no prima facie case due to lack of dishonest intention and insufficient evidence.
The court ruled that the absence of dishonest intention in the allegations against the petitioners justified quashing the criminal proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
