THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No.2814 OF 2007 DATED: 08-07-2010 Between Kota Srinivasa Rao …Petitioner –A3 And 1.Smt.Tatapudi Venkata Hanumanthamma and another …Respondents-Complainants THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No.2814 OF 2007 ORDER: This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.66 of 2007 on the file of the IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kakinada, which was taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC. 2. It is alleged in the complaint that on 18-08-2003, A1 and A2 approached the complainant at her house and made false and dishonest representation that they are going to get foreign aid to a tune of Rs.3 crores, that they are the owners of fishing vessel “FIRDOS -1” which is worth about Rs.51 lakhs and that they require Rs.8,00,000/- to move their vessel into sea from Krishnapatnam port. Believing the said representation, the complainant gave Rs.8,00,000/- to A1 and A2. After receiving the amount, A1 executed a promissory note on 18-08-2003 in favour of the complainant agreeing to repay the same with interest at 18% per annum. They also deposited the original document of their fishing vessel and gave an undertaking that they will not alienate the fishing vessel to any one till the discharge of the debt. A1 and A2 with active connivance of A3 and with a view to avoid the payment and to cheat the complainant, A1 lodged a report on 21-08-2003 falsely alleging that the original documents of the vessel were missing and got an endorsement certificate from police on 24-08-2003. Basing on the said certificate, A1 and A2 obtained duplicate ownership of the fishing vessel from the Registrar of ‘Indian Fishing Port’, Machilipatnam and crated document in the name of A3 as if he purchased the fishing vessel. The name of the vessel was changed as ‘Leela Krishna’ and again it was sold away to third parties by A1 to A3. Hence the complaint. 3. There cannot be any dispute that the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised to carry out the order passed under this Code or to prevent abuse of process of Court or to secure the ends of justice. It is also equally settled that if the allegations in the complaint are taken as true and correct, at this stage, made out a prima facie case of the offence alleged, then question of quashing the complaint does not arise. 4. Originally the 1st respondent herein lodged a complaint with the police with regard to some allegations. After investigation, the police referred the same as mistake of fact. Basing on the protest petition, the complaint was taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC. Necessary ingredients to constitute the offence of cheating which is defined under Section 415 I.P.C. are: (1) There should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him, (2) (a) the person so deceived should be induced to deliver any property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any property; or (b) the person so deceived should be intentionally induced to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and (3) in cases covered by (2)(b) the act or omission should be one which causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to the person induced in body, mind, reputation or property. 5. Even if the entire allegations made in the complaint are taken as true and correct, at this stage, it is clear that A1 and A2 alone approached the complainant on 18-08-2003 and made her to believe that they are going to get foreign aid to a tune of Rs.3 crores and that they are doing export business in marine products and that they own fishing vessel, which is worth about Rs.51,00,000/-. Believing the said representation, the complainant lent Rs.8,00,000/- for which, A1 executed a promissory note in favour of the complainant and they also deposited original document of their fishing vessel with the complainant on 18-08-2003. Later A1 and A2 after obtaining duplicate certificate of the ownership from the competent authority sold away the vessel to A3, who in turn sold away the same to third parties. Therefore, there is no allegation of whatsoever against the present petitioner who is A3 that he cheated the complainant or dishonestly misappropriated the amount. He is the bonafide purchaser for valuable consideration. There is no allegation that the present petitioner knows about pledging of the ownership certificate of the vessel with the complainant. The present petitioner has not made any false representation to the complainant so as to made her to believe his representation and believing his representation, the complainant advanced certain amount to A1 and A2. If the entire allegations are taken as true and correct, at this stage, they do not make out prima facie case of the offence alleged against the present petitioner. Hence, the proceedings against the present petitioner are liable to be quashed. 6. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.66 of 2007 on the file of the IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kakinada insofar as the present petitioner-A3 is concerned. ------------------------------- JUSTICE K.C.BHANU DATED:08-07-2010 Hsd