Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 706 (AP)

KALAKEDA IBRAHIM SAHEB v. State Of A. P.

2000-09-13

VAMAN RAO

body2000
VAMAN RAO, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition under Section 482 cr. PC seeks quashing of proceedings in cc No. 432 of 2000 on the file of the ii Additional Judicial first Class Magistrate, madanapalle in which the petitioner is an accused facing charges for offences under Sections 420, 429 and 506 IPC. ( 2 ) THE contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that even if facts as stated in the charge-sheet are presumed to be true, no offence is made out and as such proceedings are liable to be quashed. ( 3 ) THE allegations in the charge-sheet go to show that the de facto complainant had drawn and appropriated to himself some amount belonging to the petitioner in connection with the Chit Fund. Towards the liability for this amount, the petitioner executed a promissory note in favour of the de facto complainant for a sum of rs. 1,70,000/- on 15-2-2000. Subsequently, on 2-6-2000 the de facto complainant went to the house of the accused and demanded the amount payable under the promissory note. During the exchange of words, the petitioner-accused forcibly snatched away the promissory note from the de facto complainant and tore it into pieces. It is also alleged that he had beaten the complainant with hands and legs and threatened him that if he asked for money again, he would engage persons and get him killed. On the basis of these allegations, it is contended that firstly an offence under Section 420 IPC is not made out at all. From the allegations, as they appears in the charge-sheet, it is doubtful whether ingredients of offence under Section 420 ipc are made out. There is nothing to show that the accused made any fraudulent representation, which induced the complainant to part with any property or whether on the basis of fraudulent representation the complainant did or omitted to do anything, Learned Magistrate shall keep in mind the ingredients of Section 420 ipc and at the stage of framing charges shall consider this aspect whether offence under Section 420 IPC could be said to have been made out. ( 4 ) IN regard to the offence under Section 429 IPC, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that this Section does not apply to the facts of the case at all. ( 4 ) IN regard to the offence under Section 429 IPC, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that this Section does not apply to the facts of the case at all. It is pointed out that the offence under Section 429 IPC relates to mischief by killing or maiming cattle or any animal of the value of fifty rupees. It is true that the question of application of offence under Section 429 IPC to the facts of the case does not apply. But, this does not appear to conclude the matter inasmuch as the alleged facts if taken to be true do constitute an offence under Section 427 IPC. Mischief has been defined in Section 425 ipc which reads as follows:"425. Mischief:whoever, with intent to cause, or knowing that he is likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person, cause the destruction of any property, or any such change in any property or in the situation thereof as destroys or diminishes its value or utility, or affects it injuriously, commits "mischief. Explanation 1. It is not essential to the offence of mischief that the offender should intend to cause loss or damage to the owner of the property injured or destroyed. It is sufficient if he intents to cause, or knows that he is likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage to any person injuring any property, whether it belongs to that person or not. Explanation 2mischief may be committed by and act affecting property belonging to the person commits the act or to that person and others jointly. " ( 5 ) IT is apparent that destruction of any property or any such change in any property or situation thereof which destroys, or diminishes the value or utility or affects it injuriously with an intention or knowledge that such destruction or change is likely to cause wrongful loss or damage to any person constitutes an offence under Section 425 IPC. In this case the allegations against the petitioner are that he destroyed the promissory note, which he had executed in favour of the complainant. A promissory note certainly constitutes property within the meaning of Section 425 ipc. Inasmuch as the value of the promissory note has been stated to be more than Rs. In this case the allegations against the petitioner are that he destroyed the promissory note, which he had executed in favour of the complainant. A promissory note certainly constitutes property within the meaning of Section 425 ipc. Inasmuch as the value of the promissory note has been stated to be more than Rs. 50/- the ingredients of offence under Section 427 IPC must be held to have been made. ( 6 ) IN regard to the allegation of offence under Section 506 IPC, there are allegations in the charge-sheet that the accused had threatened the de facto complainant with dire consequences if he made any demand for the amount covered by the promissory note. Apart from this threat, the de facto complainant was said to have been beaten by the accused. It cannot be said that the offence under Section 506 ipc has not been made out at this stage. It is pertinent to mention here that in a petition under Section 482 Cr. PC this Court is not expected to meticulously examine whether each and every element or ingredient of an offence has been made out. If the broad facts go to constitute of an offence, this Court would be averse to interfere under Section 482 Cr. PC. Under these circumstances, there are no grounds for quashing the proceedings against the petitioner in the said CC No. 432 of 2000 on the file of the II Additional Judicial First class Magistrate, Madanapalle. ( 7 ) ACCORDINGLY, this petition is dismissed. However, as stated above, the learned Magistrate shall consider at the stage of framing of charges whether ingredients of offence under Section 420 ipc and other offences are made out or not.