The court upheld that allegations of cheating are sufficient for maintaining prosecution, emphasizing that innocence can only be established during trial.

O R D E R

The accused No.1 to 3 in C.C.No.696/2018 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-IV, Perumbavoor, have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, ‘Cr.PC’), to quash the proceedings against them in the aforesaid case. The allegation against the petitioners is that they committed the offence under Sections 406 & 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, ‘ IPC ').

2. The prosecution case is that the petitioners, who were conducting a partnership firm under the name and style ‘Chaithanya Enterprises’, received deposits from the de facto complainant/third respondent from 27.12.2012 to 01.07.2013 promising to pay back the aforesaid amount with a high returns of interests, and thereafter cheated the de facto complainant by not giving back the amount as agreed. It is alleged that the petitioners defrauded the de facto complainant a total amount of Rs.13,81,000/- in the above transaction.

3. In the present petition, the petitioners would contend that they are totally innocent and that a false case has been foisted against them. According to the petitioners, none of the offences as alleged against them are attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is further contended that the husband of the de facto complainant was a subscriber to the chitty conducted by the establishment run by the petitioners, and that after the death of the de facto complainant’s husband, the curies were changed in the name of the de facto complainant. It is also stated that the petitioners have been making payment promptly to the de facto complainant.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

5. The allegations in the final report and the accompanying records would clearly bring home the offence of cheating punishable under Section 420 IPC . The de facto complainant would contend that she was fraudulently and dishonestly induced by the accused to believe that if she deposited amounts with the establishment of the petitioners, it would be returned with attractive interest, and that they later on cheated her by not giving the amount collected from her. The witnesses cited as CW2 and CW3 are the staff of the establishment conducted by the petitioners. They have given statement to the Investigating Officer about the receipt of Rs.13,81,000/- from the de facto complainant. The contention of the petitioners that they have been promptly paying the money due to the de facto complainant, is a matter to be raised at the time of trial. This Court cannot conduct a mini trial or an enquiry on the above contention of the petitioners about the payments said to have been made to the de facto complainant. The petitioners could raise all such contentions before the Trial Court at the time of evidence. At any rate, it is not possible for this Court to wind up the prosecution proceedings against the petitioners at the threshold by invoking the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.PC. Needless to say, the prayer in this petition cannot be allowed.

In the result, the petition is hereby dismissed.

(sd/-)