(1.) THE hearing arises out of an application being C.R.R. No. 630 of 2007 filed by the accused in Complaint Case No. 1140 c of 2006 under Section 420, 323, 506, 34 I.P.C for quashing the criminal proceedings.

(2.) LEARNED lawyer for the petitioner has contended that learned magistrate took cognizance of the offences and erroneously issued process under Section 420, I.P.C though the said offence was not made out in the complainant. Learned lawyer for the petitioner has contended that the complainant brought this case contending that the accused secured interest free loan of Rs. 3,50,000/-from the complainant on the assurance of the complainant for repayment of the same within stipulated period but the complainant refused to repay the same. The complainant was abused and threatened with dire consequences and assaulted. Within the four corners of the petition of complaint there is nothing to show that the accused had fraudulent intention at the time when the complainant parted with the money. In other words, there is nothing to show that there was any intention on the part of the accused to deceive the complainant at the time when the loan was given to the accused. The complaint discloses a case of lending money to the accused by the complainant with a promise to pay and breach of such promise and there is nothing to show in the complaint that accused had dishonest or fraudulent intention at me time the complainant parted with the money. There is no question of taking cognizance of offence under Section 420 of the I.P.C and it may at best amount to breach of contract or breach of promise which is a civil liability. Moreover, the accused repaid the loan amount by depositing the same with the bank. Thus the essential ingredients of cheating i.e. fraudulent or dishonest inducement are missing in this case and the entire criminal proceedings is liable to be quashed.

(3.) HE has placed his reliance upon the ruling reported in (2006)2 scc (Cr) page 49, 430; (2006)1 SCC (Cr) 746 ; 2000 SCC (Cr) at page 786 : 2000 C Cr LR (SC) 293, 2002 SCC (Cr) at page 129 and 2003 SCC (Cr) at page 703, 490 and 1121 : 2003 C Cr LR (SC) 694.

(4.) LEARNED lawyer for the respondent has contended that the petition of complaint discloses offences under Section 420, 323, 506 I.P.C. and cognizance was rightly taken and process was rightly issued. He has further contended that the petition of complaint clearly discloses that there was inducement on the part of the accused leading the complainant to part with the money and the accused instead of repaying the money parted with by the complainant assaulted and threatened the complainant with dire consequences so that the complainant could not make demand for such amount. The accused approached the complainant for loan and complainant gave loan, as there was good relationship between the parties. He-further contends that he further draws attention of the Court to Section 415 illustration (F) of the Indian Penal code where it has been embodied that A intentionally deceived Z into a belief that A means to repay any money that Z may lend to him and thereby dishonest induced Z to lend him money A not intending to repaid it. A cheats. Here the accused intentionally deceived the complainant into a belief that they meant to repay any money that the complainant might lend to accused No. 1 and thereby dishonestly induced the complainant to lend the complainant No. 1 money. The accused had no intention to repay the sum. The accused thus cheats the complainant. Learned lawyer for the respondent has further contended that even if it assumed that the petition of complaint lacks any ingredient of the offence under Section 420, I.P.C then also that is not sufficient for quashing the proceedings at this initial stage. There will be trial of the case and the complainant will have an opportunity to adduce the evidence and to prove all the ingredients of the offence of cheating and so at this stage the prosecution cannot