THE HON’BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-sole accused seeking to quash the proceedings in CC No.2240 of 2024 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class for trial of cases under Telangana Prohibition and Excise Act cum IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Khammam, for the offence under Section 420 IPC.

2. Heard Mr. K.Krishna Shrawan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1-State.

3. Though notice was served on respondent No.2, he failed to appear before this court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner herein is alleged to have threatened the de facto complainant that in case if he demands for repayment of money, he would get a complaint lodged against the de facto complainant through his wife. Therefore, the de facto complainant has lodged the present complainant to take action against the petitioner herein. He further submitted that the allegations are utterly false against the petitioner and that the factual position is that the cousin of the petitioner used the credit card pertaining to the petitioner and that there was an MOU entered into between the petitioner-accused and his cousin. It is alleged that the petitioner-accused has taken a loan of Rs.22,10,998/- from the de facto complainant, who is his friend, for development of his business and that he has promised to pay the said amount with interest at 24% per annum, but failed to repay the same and therefore, a legal notice has been issued by the de facto complainant. But, the contention of the petitioner is that he has never taken any such loan from the de facto complainant. He further has filed a bunch of WhatsApp messages disclosing the transactions between himself and his cousin and the counsel for the petitioner has argued that the whatsApp messages disclose that it is his cousin who has taken the amount from the de facto complainant and there were transactions between both the parties and he is not at all involved in the said case and has pointed out certain payments made through online.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the prosecution could not collect any documents in furtherance of the complaint and that the petitioner is the friend of LW.1 and the petitioner has taken money from the de facto complainant and failed to repay and therefore, he is facing the allegations.

6. Perused the record.

7. The recitals of the charge sheet disclose that LW.1 i.e. the de facto complainant is a friend of the petitioner-accused and the accused has fraudulently enticed the de facto complainant to provide him a loan for the purpose of his business development and promised to return the same in six months, and that the de facto complainant has agreed to give the loan Thereafter, the de facto complainant transferred an amount of Rs.24,999/- from his account and similarly there are account transfers of the money totaling to Rs.22,10,998/- but later on, on 10.05.2024 when the de facto complainant made a phone call to the petitioner and asked him to repay the amount, he revolted by stating that he will not return the money and threatened that he will get a case filed through his wife against the de facto complainant. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 420 IPC. The charge sheet does not disclose any documents collected to prove the offence against the petitioner. The ingredients of Section 420 are extracted hereunder for the sake of reference:

“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 valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which