The distinction between breach of agreement and cheating is crucial, and the presence of deception and fraudulent intention is essential to establish the offences of cheating and criminal breach of trust.

JUDGMENT

Manish Choudhury, J. - Heard Ms. S. Kejriwal, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. B.B. Gogoi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent no. 1, State of Assam and Mr. P. Das, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2.

2. The petitioners, 7 (seven) in nos., have preferred this criminal petition seeking invocation of the inherent powers under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("the Code" and/or "the CrPC", for short) for quashing of the First Information Report (FIR) dated 07.01.2019 registered as Jorhat Police Station Case No. 48/2019 (corresponding G.R. Case No. 65/2019) under Sections 406/420, Indian Penal Code (IPC) and all consequential actions arising therefrom.

3. The petitioner no. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner no. 1-company) is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Howrah. The petitioner nos. 2-7 are the Directors of petitioner no. 1-company and are residents of various places outside the State of Assam. It is projected that the petitioner no. 1-company, to start a new retail showroom, had entered into a tenancy agreement dated 05.06.2017 with one M/s DRB Developers, Guwahati for taking a commercial place on rent in a building named DRB Heights, located at Raja Maidan Road, Jorhat. The First Information Report (FIR) which has been lodged by the respondent no. 2, is in connection with the disputes and differences which have emanated from the said tenancy agreement dated 05.06.2017.

4. It is submitted by Ms. Kejriwal that the entire issues are with regard to the tenancy agreement dated 05.06.2017 and an addendum entered into between the petitioner no.1 company with the respondent no. 2 on 20.04.2018. A perusal of the FIR would make it amply clear that the dispute arising between the parties is clearly a civil dispute and the respondent no. 2-informant has sought to give criminal colours to it by alleging cheating and criminal breach of trust, etc.

5. Per contra, Mr. Das has submitted that the petitioner no. 1-company and their Directors right since the inception of the agreement, had acted dishonestly in order cause wrongful loss to the respondent no. 2-informant. He has further submitted that earlier, the respondent no. 2-informant had lodged an FIR which was registered as Jorhat Police Station Case No. 2666/2017 on 16.12.2017 and after registration of the said case, the parties had negotiated and after mutual discussion, an addendum was entered into on 20.04.2018. The petitioner no. 1-company did not adhere to the conditions of the said addendum, more particularly, as regards payment of 7% of the net sale value, retention of sufficient stocks, marketing activities, etc. for increasing the sales of the store.

6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials made available with the criminal petition including the FIR lodged by the respondent no. 2 which resulted into the registration of Jorhat Police Station Case No. 48/2019 under Sections 420/406, IPC.

7. From a perusal of the FIR as well as tenancy agreement along with the addendum it appears that the parties had business transactions and the disputes and differences had appeared between them out of the said tenancy agreement, addendum, etc. It is the intention which is the core issue to find out whether the dispute is a civil dispute simplicitor or any criminal intent can be attributed on the part of the petitioner no. 1-company and its Directors on for actions. For that purpose, it is necessary to look further into the averments and allegations made in the said FIR.

wxyz

7.1. It transpires that M/s DRB Developers is a registered partnership firm and the FIR was lodged by the authorized signatory of M/s DRB Developer who has been impleaded as respondent no. 2 in this petition. From the materials on record and the submissions of the parties, it has emerged that M/s DRB Developers is the owner of a commercial premise