2018 (3) TMI 1960

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nant is carrying on a chit fund business in the name and style of "EKTA CHIT FUNDS" in Secunderabad. The petitioner/sole Accused was a subscriber of chit in Group No. EG-24 and was allotted Ticket No. 16 for a chit value of Rs. 5.00 Lakhs and the duration of the said chit was 20 months with a monthly subscription of Rs. 25,000/-. The chit was commenced on 18.07.2007 and would end by 14.02.2009. The petitioner became the successful bidder of the said chit in 4th month and received the bid amount. But, he failed to pay the monthly subscriptions from 14th to 20th months, and issued a cheque bearing No. 580576, dated 11.12.2009 for an amount of Rs. 1,75,000/- drawn on ICICI Bank Limited, Secunderabad. The cheque presented in the Bank on 13.12.2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r became the successful bidder of a chit value of Rs. 5,00,000/- and he could not pay the last five instalments having received the bid amount. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is engaged in the business of supply of material, like tents and crockery and his business premises was acquired by the Government during road widening and, therefore, he could not pay the last five instalments. It is further submitted that the petitioner had no intention right from the beginning to defraud the complainant, that with a genuine intention, he joined as a subscriber of a chit and became a successful bidder, and after receiving the bid amount, he paid the remaining instalments as usual. As his shop was acquired by the Govern....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....touching the discharge of such trust." 6. Placing reliance on the above decision, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the petitioner had no intention right from the beginning to defraud the complainant, the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 IPC are not attracted and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for quashing of the proceedings against him. 7. The learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent-State submits that the ingredients of Sections 420 and 406 are not present in this case as the transaction pertains to a chit fund business and the petitioner happened to be subscriber of a chit. 8. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and in the light ....