1. This is an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying for quashing the proceedings taken up against the petitioner in Complaint Case No. 04/2012, u/s 418, 420, 423 & 426 of IPC, before the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dimapur, Nagaland.

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of this petition are as follows;

That the petitioner/accused, businessmen by profession, in order to tie over his financial difficulties approach his bother-in-law i.e. the respondent/complainant to borrow some money for him from money lenders by mortgaging his property as he himself did not have any property that can be mortgaged for the purpose. Consenting to the request, his brother-in-law, the respondent/complainant by mortgaging his land and house secured for him 3(three) loans from different persons. The names of the money lenders and the amount given by them on loan are as follows; (i) Mrs. Dolly K. Ezung -Rs. 17 lakhs, (ii) Mr. Hukavi Muru-Rs. 50 lakhs and (iii) R.M. Ketouse Society –Rs. 30 lakhs. In course of time, the petitioner made repayment of some of the loan amounts but could not repay the whole loans, therefore, the money lenders particularly, Mr. Hukavi Muru demanded repayment of the loan and took step for taking over the property of the petitioner’s brother-in-law, the respondent/complainant. However, the petitioner/accused and his bother-in-law filed a Civil Suit No. 13/2008 in the Court of learned Addl. District Judge, Dimapur, praying for preventing Mr. Hukavi Muru from taking over the property of the respondent/complainant in execution of the mortgage deed and also for preventing or stopping Mr. Hukavi Muru from demanding any more amount in repayment of the loan. The Court passed an order dated 16.05.2008 by which Mr. Hukavi Muru was restrained from enforcing the mortgage deed dated 13.05.2006 and from claiming the outstanding amount of Rs. 48, 60,000/-, and also restrained him from disturbing the respondent/complainant from his peaceful enjoyment of his mortgage land and house. However, since the petitioner could not repay the loan amount, the respondent/complainant felt cheated and betrayed, therefore, filed the complaint case before the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class Dimapur, praying for taking cognizance of the offences under section 418, 420 and 426 of IPC against the petitioner. The Magistrate after having recorded the statement of the respondent/complainant on oath was satisfied that prima facie case against the petitioner/accused under section 418, 420 and 426 of IPC has been made out. Accordingly, took cognizance and started the proceedings against the petitioner/accused.

3. Being aggrieved, the petitioner/accused has come to this Court stating that the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class ought not to have taken cognizance of the offences under the sections of IPC, against him, as the facts and circumstances stated by the respondent/complainant in both the complaint petition and in his statement recorded under oath does not constitute any of the offences. The sections of IPC under which the cognizance has been taken against the petitioner/accused are as follows:

Section 418 IPC. Cheating with knowledge that wrongful loss may ensue to person whose interest offender is bound to protect.—Whoever cheats with the knowledge that he is likely thereby to cause wrongful loss to a person, whose interest, in the transaction to which the cheating relates, he was bound, either by law, or by a legal contract, to protect, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

Section 420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.—Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a val