HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3400 OF 2010 Date: 16.04.2010 Between: Smt Reeta Agarwal ……Petitioner And: State of AP., rep. by its PP and another ……Respondents. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3400 OF 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is accused of offences punishable under Sections 420 and 500 IPC in Crime No.43 of 2010 of Begumpet Police Station, Hyderabad. He is seeking quashing the said FIR. According to the 2nd respondent/defacto-complainant, the petitioner borrowed Rs.2,00,000/- from him on 27.05.2009 and issued cheque dated 26.11.2009 as security for the loan promising to repay the said amount within stipulated time and that the cheque was dishonoured with endorsement of “payment stopped by the debtor” and that when the 2nd respondent enquired on 10.12.2009 about status of his account, he was shocked to know that the amount was not credited in his account. There was exchange of notices between the parties thereafter. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that in the private complaint filed by the 2nd respondent, which was forwarded by the Magistrate to the police for investigation, the 2nd respondent did not allege dishonest intention or fraudulent intention on the part of the accused from the date of borrowing itself and that as per allegations in the complaint, the 2nd respondent came to know about bad intention of the petitioner only when he received reply notice from the petitioner. Therefore, it is contended that in the absence of dishonest intention on the part of the 2nd respondent at the time of inception of the transaction, the question of petitioner committing offence punishable under Section 420 IPC does not arise at all. Dishonest intention is a question of fact and is a matter for inference from the attending circumstances and facts. Simply because the 2nd respondent came to know about bad intention of the petitioner after receipt of reply notice from the petitioner, it cannot be said that the petitioner had no such oblique motive from the time of inception of the transaction. It is sufficient if there was any such dishonest or fraudulent intention either at the time of borrowing of loan or at the time of issuing of cheque. When the cheque was issued without there being any intention of honouring the same and when the accused gives instructions to his banker for stopping payment of the cheque amount, it is a matter for inference either for the police or for the court that the accused had no intention to honour the cheque. Therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said that the accused had no dishonest or fraudulent intention from the time of inception of the transaction. Thus, I see no reasons to interfere with investigation of this case at this point of time. Hence, the petition is dismissed. ___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J Date:16.04.2010. Gk. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3400 OF 2010 Date: 16.04.2010 Gk.