Prima facie role in alleged loan deception barred interference with the summoning order under Section 482 CrPC.

A summoning order for cheating under Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC was upheld where the complaint and supporting witness material indicated that the accused concealed pending winding-up proceedings while obtaining an inter-corporate loan and thereby induced the complainant to part with money. The accused's role in the transaction was also supported by his own letter describing his position and participation in the loan dealings, which established a prima facie case. The court held that a later resignation from directorship did not negate that material. Interference under Section 482 CrPC was therefore unwarranted, and the summons and criminal proceedings were allowed to continue.

---

---

Issues: Whether the summoning order under Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC called for interference in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC.

Analysis: The complaint alleged that the accused persons, while obtaining an inter-corporate loan, concealed the material fact that the company was already facing winding-up proceedings and thereby induced the complainant to part with money. The petitioner's presence in the transaction was supported by the complaint, the statement of the complainant's witness, and the petitioner's own letter addressed to the complainant shortly after the transaction, showing his role as President of the company and his participation in the loan dealings. On that material, the court below had sufficient grounds to proceed, and the challenge based on the petitioner's later resignation from directorship did not dislodge the prima facie case.

Conclusion: The challenge to the summoning order failed and interference was not warranted.

Final Conclusion: The petition was dismissed, leaving the summons and the criminal proceedings to continue.

Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings under Section 482 CrPC, a summoning order based on complaint material and supporting witness statement will not be interfered with where the record discloses a prima facie role of the accused in the alleged deception and concealment forming the basis of the cheating charge.

---