IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.317 of 2009 DATE:05.08.2010 Between: Sikandar Singh …… Petitioner And: Rambir Singh and another …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.317 of 2009 ORDER : The petitioner is accused of offence punishable under Section 420 I.P.C. in C.C. No.848 of 2008 on the file of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam. The petitioner joined as student in Manasa Defence Academy and underwent coaching to attend the defence selections after handing over his original certificates. It is alleged that the total amount payable for the coaching and placement was Rs.2,00,000/- and that the accused paid advance of Rs.10,000/- out of it initially and that the agreed amount of Rs.2,00,000/- is towards tuition fees, hostel facility, library etc., and that after completion of the coaching, the accused left the academy leaving his certificates with the academy and that the accused was selected in Indian Navy by INS Chilka authorities without obtaining original certificates from the complainant and after obtaining duplicate certificates from the concerned authorities. 2) The contention of the petitioner that he was a minor at the time of execution of agreement with the complainant, has no relevance in criminal law. It is not the petitioner’s case that he did not get any age of discretion when he joined in the academy. At any rate, it has to be seen whether allegations in the charge sheet disclose an offence punishable under Section 420 I.P.C against the petitioner/accused. On reading of allegations in the charge sheet, it is evident that it is a case of non payment of balance fees by the petitioner and leaving certificates with the complainant itself. No doubt, as laid down in Central Bureau of Investigation V. A.Ravishankar Prasad[1] a given case may give rise to not only civil liability but also criminal liability. Therefore, it has to be seen whether facts in the present case attract criminal liability apart from civil liability for the petitioner towards the defacto- complainant. There is no allegation on the part of the prosecution that the petitioner had dishonest intention even at the time of inception of the transaction of entering into agreement with the defacto-complainant. Simply because the petitioner left the academy without paying balance fees as agreed by him, it will not attract criminal liability muchless one under Section 420 I.P.C. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that taking allegations in the charge sheet for granted, the prosecution could not make out statutory facts relating to the offence under Section 420 I.P.C. 3) In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing proceedings in C.C. No.848 of 2008 on the file of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J August 5, 2010 KSH [1] (2009)6 Supreme Court Cases 351