THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5717 OF 2009. DATED: 12-10-2009. Between: 1.A.Subramanyam and two others … Petitioners/ accused and 1. State of A.P. rep by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another. …Respondents/Complainants THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5717 OF 2009. ORDER: This Criminal Petition by the petitioners-A1 to A3 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed to quash F.I.R.No.782 of 2009 on the file of Kukatpally Police Station, which was registered of the offences punishable under Sections 420,465,468 and 471 r/w 34 IPC and 156 (3) Cr.P.C. 2. The allegations in the complaint would go to show that the complainant purchased a flat No. F 304 under an agreement of sale, dated 02-11-1998 from M/s Rao and Raj constructions and as per the agreement, sale consideration is Rs.2,80,000/-. A2 has to complete the construction of flat within one year and A2 introduced A3 who is his brother-in-law and induced the complainant to enter into an agreement with A3. Believing A2 and A3, the complainant entered into an agreement with A3 on 10-11- 1998 wherein A3 undertook to complete certain additions and alteration works for different items within the time stipulated. When A2 and A3 induced the complainant to issue cheques, the complainant issued three self drawn cheques. A2 forged the cheque bearing No.536208 and also forged the words and figures. The word ‘self’ has been re-written as S.Rajasekhar and filed the complaint in C.C.No.239 of 2002 on the file of the Judl. I Class Magistrate, Ranga Reddy and thereafter, A2 did not pursue the said case and the same was dismissed. Therefore, A2 and A3 hatched up a plan in order to make an unlawful gain from the complainant by filing false case for compelling her to withdraw the criminal case and all the accused forged two cheques bearing No.536206 and 536207, which were self drawn. Hence, the complaint. 3. 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. Similarly, using a document, which is found to be false is forgery within the meaning of Section 471 IPC. Specific allegations are levelled against the petitioners alleging that they have converted the self-cheques as if given to one S.Rajasekhar and Adapa Subramanyam and presented those cheques in the bank for encashment. But the said cheques were returned with an endorsement two complaints were filed. Ultimately, one complaint was dismissed for non- prosecution and another is pending for advancing arguments. The specific case of the complainant is that she has not given any cheque in favour of S.Rajasekhar or Adapa Subramanyam. The cheques that were given to the accused were self-cheques. In pursuance of their pursuation, those self-cheques have been forged. Letters, amounts and the dates also have been forged by the accused. Therefore, un-controverted allegations if taken as true and correct, at this stage, without deciding the truth or otherwise of the allegations, make out prima facie case under Sections 420 and 471 IPC. Hence, question of quashing the proceedings does not arise. 4. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. -------------------- K.C.BHANU, J DATED:12-10-2009 Hsd