Amhalavanan Vs. A. Anhalagan

Amhalavanan vs A. Anhalagan

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jul 28, 1999

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/790771

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/790771
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: N. Dhinakar, J.
Decided On: Jul 28, 1999
Case Number: Crl.O.P.No. 9207 of 98 and Crl.O.P.No. 3692 of 1998
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Key legal issue: Criminal
Acts & sections: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 -- Sections 482; Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 -- Sections 420

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Amhalavanan

Advocate Mr. A. Packiaraj. Adv.

Respondent

A. Anhalagan

Advocate Mr. Ashokumar, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 -- Sections 482; Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 -- Sections 420
Reported In: 1999(3)CTC36

Excerpt

- .....is the further allegation in the complaint that one of the considerations for the said sale is the promise made by the petitioner to offer transport contract for transporting limestones and that later, the petitioner went back on his promise and the contract was offered to other persons.2. in my view, the allegations in the complaint did not make out an offence punishable under section 420 ipc since the ingredients of the offence are not made out. it is the admitted case that the lands were sought to be purchased by the petitioner from the respondent and the respondent also conveyed the property by way of a sale deed. the fact that the petitioner offered to give contracts to the respondent for transporting limestones and that he did not give any such contract after the purchase, is not a ground to prosecute the petitioner, stating that he has cheated.3. for the offence of cheating, the ingredients required are that the person must make a fraudulent or dishonest inducement to the person deceived to deliver any property to any person. here, the property was not obtained by any fraudulent or dishonest inducement since the property itself was sold as admitted by the complainant himself for a consideration mentioned in the sale deed.4. on the averments made in the complaint. i am of the view that allowing the prosecution to continue against the petitioner will amount to abuse of process of court. therefore, the proceedings in c.c.no. 56 of 1998 on the file of the judicial magistrate, ariyalur, are quashed. in the result, the crl.o.p. is allowed. consequently, crl.m.p.no. 3692 of 1998 is closed.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Judgement Pronounced by N. Dhinakar, J.

1. Petitioner is the second accused in C.C. No. 56 of 1998 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Ariyalur, and the proceedings against him and another came to be initiated by way of a private complaint at the instance of the respondent for an offence under Section 420 IPC. In the said complaint, the respondent has alleged that the petitioner wanted him to sell some lands and that he refused and later, agreed to sell them and accordingly, the sale deed was executed and the property was conveyed through the said sale deed. It is the further allegation in the complaint that one of the considerations for the said sale is the promise made by the petitioner to offer transport contract for transporting limestones and that later, the petitioner went back on his promise and the contract was offered to other persons.

2. In my view, the allegations in the complaint did not make out an offence punishable under section 420 IPC since the ingredients of the offence are not made out. It is the admitted case that the lands were sought to be purchased by the petitioner from the respondent and the respondent also conveyed the property by way of a sale deed. The fact that the petitioner offered to give contracts to the respondent for transporting limestones and that he did not give any such contract after the purchase, is not a ground to prosecute the petitioner, stating that he has cheated.

3. For the offence of cheating, the ingredients required are that the person must make a fraudulent or dishonest inducement to the person deceived to deliver any property to any person. Here, the property was not obtained by any fraudulent or dishonest inducement since the property itself was sold as admitted by the complainant himself for a consideration mentioned in the sale deed.

4. On the averments made in the complaint. I am of the view that allowing the prosecution to continue against the petitioner will amount to abuse of process of court. Therefore, the proceedings in C.C.No. 56 of 1998 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Ariyalur, are quashed. In the result, the Crl.O.P. is allowed. Consequently, Crl.M.P.No. 3692 of 1998 is closed.

Same Court & Year Chennai · 1999 Same Parties Amhalavanan vs A. Anhalagan Same Subject Criminal Same Judge N. Dhinakar, J. Acts & Sections Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 -- Sections 482; Ind...

Criminal