The essential ingredients of cheating under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code are false representation, inducement, delivery of property, and intention to deceive. In the absence of these elements, a civil transaction does not amount to cheating.

JUDGMENT - Dr. Mrs. PRATIBHA UPASANI, J.:---This Criminal Revision Application No. 309 of 1990, which was later on converted into Writ Petition No. 372 of 1991, is filed by the petitioner (original complainant) against respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (original accused), being aggrieved by the order dated 27th July, 1990 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay. By his impugned order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the revision preferred by the complainant Jotumal Thakurdas Thawani, whereby he was aggrieved by the order passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, discharging the accused for the offence of cheating punishable under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Few facts may be narrated, which are as follows:

It was the case of the complainant before the Magistrate that his family consisting of 22 members was doing business of bankers and financers, and the financing was mainly restricted to production of films. Accused No. 1 O.P. Ralhan was a producer, actor, writer and director and the complainant Mr. Jotumal Thawani had financed Mr. Rajhan for his film 'Papi' some eight years before the filing of the complaint.

3. The complainant has alleged that in August, 1980, accused No. 1 approached him for finance of his film 'Pyas'. An agreement was entered into between the complainant Mr. Jotumal Thawani and accused No. 1 on 12th of August, 1980 and in pursuance of that agreement, the complainant paid in all a sum of Rs. 24,64,000/- to the accused for the production of his film 'Pyas'. It was the term of the Agreement that whenever the complainant was to make the payment of the finance, the accused was to give him a post-dated cheque towards the repayment of the amount, and if the accused could not arrange for the repayment, an option was given to him to take back this cheque and issue a fresh post-dated cheque again at the time of the payment of further finance. Finally, the accused gave twenty-one cheques to the complainant towards the full repayment of the amount of loan. But when all these cheques were deposited by the complainant in his Bank, they were dishonoured. Moreover, the accused also failed to repay the amount.

4. The complainant has also alleged that on 29th October, 1983, accused No. 1 approached the complainant and requested him to release the Delhi/U.P. territory to him, so that, he could approach the Government for exempting the film from entertainment tax. He also represented to the complainant that he would be able to get lot of money by exhibiting the film in Delhi/U.P. territory, if exemption from the entertainment tax was granted to his film 'Pyas'. According to the complainant, relying on the representations made by accused No. 1, the complainant released Delhi/U.P. territory in favour of the accused by sending letter to the Bombay Film Laboratories Private Limited, Bombay. But he, later on, came to know that accused No. 1 had sold the distributing rights of the said territory to some other Company of Delhi for a sum of Rupees Seventeen Lakhs and had received Rupees Eight Lakhs as advance. It is the grievance of the complainant that inspite of getting this amount, the accused failed to repay the loan amount or any part of it, to the complainant. Therefore, it is the case of the complainant that the accused cheated him and committed an offence under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, and complaint came to be filed by him on 23rd of May, 1984.

5. The complainant had led evidence before charge for making out a prima-facie case against the accused, and examined himself and two more witnesses- Narayan Shetty Sooda, Special Assistant in Vijaya Bank, Mahim Branch, Bombay, and P. Sundaram, a Cashier from the Punjab National Bank. He also produced several documents. However, after considering the evidence and arguments of both the sides, the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 19th Court, Esplanade, Bombay, held that the transaction between the complainant and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document