IMPORTANT POINT
The court quashed proceedings for cheating and intimidation, finding no prima facie case due to lack of dishonest intention and insufficient evidence.

ORDER :

The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973[for short ‘Cr.P.C’] has been filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 3, seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.118 of 2020 on the file of the Court of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadapa for the offences under Sections 420 and 506 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.[for short ‘IPC’]

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:

a. Respondent No.2/Complainant while eking out livelihood through cultivation, has been doing business in groundnuts in the past 25 years by separating the groundnuts with Decaticador machine at his house and selling the same to the business people. As such, Respondent No.2 has been selling groundnut seeds to Petitioner No.1/Accused No.1 for the last 20 years.

b. On 26.09.2012, Petitioner No.1/Accused No.1 took groundnut seeds from the complainant for Rs.8,46,000/- and for Rs.8,19,150/- on 15.06.2013 on credit basis, but despite repeated demands, he did not repay the same. When the complainant telephoned to Accused No.2, who is the son of Accused No.1 and asked for the said amount, he abused him and threatened to kill.

c. Accused No.1 with deceitful words, took groundnuts worth Rs.16,65,150/- by giving promissory notes. Accused No.2 also cheated him by promising that he will pay the amount instead of his father. Accused No.3, who is another son of Accused No.1 also promised the complainant to repay the amount but he also threatened him. As such, the complainant lodged a complaint, registered as a case in Crime No.186 of 2019 for the offences under Sections 420 and 506 read with 34 IPC of Vallur Police Station against Accused Nos.1 to 3 and after due investigation, charge sheet was filed and the same was numbered as C.C.No.118 of 2020 on the file of the Court of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadapa.

3. Being aggrieved by the said case, Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 3 filed the present petition seeking quashment of the said case against them, on the following grounds:

a. The facts mentioned in the complaint clearly show that there was business transaction between the complainant and the accused, which is purely a civil issue and any failure to pay the amounts cannot be treated as cheating as contemplated under Section 420 IPC.

b. The allegations about the offence under Section 506 IPC are only cooked up and not supported by any material evidence.

c. The statements of the witnesses and the charge sheet filed are nothing but replica of the contents of the complaint.

d. Criminal case which is foisted basing on a business transaction, which is civil in nature cannot be sustained.

e. Mere usage of words like cheating etc., would not make a case under Section 420 IPC and any allegation of threat without substantial basis would not make out a case under Section 506 IPC.

f. The complainant is trying to implicate the Petitioners in criminal cases to recover his time barred debts and the said attempt is a sheer abuse of process of the Court.

Arguments Advanced at the Bar

4. Heard Sri Karnam Ramesh, learned counsel for the Petitioners, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State/Respondent No.1 and M/s. Indus Law Firm for Respondent No.2.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 3 would submit that the allegations leveled against the Petitioners would show that there are business transactions between the complainant and the Petitioners, which are of civil nature, as such, criminal liability cannot be fastened against the Petitioners. There are no specific overt acts attributed against the Petitioner, which would attract the offences under Sections 420 and 506 IPC. It is also stated that the Petitioners are falsely implicated in the present case to recover the time barred debts. Hence, prayed to quash the proceedings against the Petitioners.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, in unison, would submit that ther