The court dismissed a criminal petition filed by an accused (A.4) in a cheating case. It held that allegations of false representation by the accused require trial to determine complicity and cannot be ignored at this stage.
Criminal Petition No.7447 of 2012 is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU
Criminal Petition No.7447 of 2012
O R D E R:
The petitioner/A.4 is accused of offences punishable under Sections 420 and 506 IPC along with A.1 to A.3. She is mother of A.2. It is alleged that A.3 and A.4 also made false representation to the de facto complainant with an intention to deceive, in pursuance of which the de facto complainant paid Rs.3,50,000/- to A.2 to secure job to his son. The said deal could not be fructified. When A.4 is also alleged to have made false representation and induced the de facto complainant to make payment of Rs.3,50,000/- to her son A.2, it cannot be said that there is no complicity for A.4 in this case. Truth or otherwise of the said allegation is a matter for trial.
Hence, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J
Dt. 17th October, 2012 PNV
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the allegations of false representation by A.4 constitute complicity in the offences charged against her requiring trial.
Whether the criminal petition challenging the proceedings should be allowed or dismissed.
Whether the matter of truth regarding the allegation of false representation is for trial.
Petitioner/A.4
De facto complainant
A.2
A.3
A.1
Samudrala Govindarajulu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
