The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between breach of contract and cheating, emphasizing the need for fraudulent and dishonest intention for the offense of cheating to be established.

JUDGMENT :

KAUSHIK GOSWAMI, J.

1. Heard Mr. T. Lalnunsiama, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State-respondents.

2. Though as per Court's Order dated 06.11.2023, notice was issued to the respondent No. 6 and A/D card in respect of the respondent No. 6 was received after due service upon respondent No. 6, there is no representative on behalf of the respondent No. 6. Since service of notice was completed in respect of respondent No. 6 and despite receiving the said notice in November, 2023, she has chosen not to appear in the criminal proceedings, the matter is taken up for hearing.

3. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 1973 for quashing the FIR, which was registered as Aizawl PS (C) Case No. 472/2022 dated 07.07.2022 under Sections 420/406 IPC against the petitioner.

4. The principle of exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR is well settled by number of cases of the Hon'ble Apex Court. These parameters are as hereunder:

“(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala-fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”

5. The case of the complainant/respondent No. 6 in the FIR dated 07.07.2022 is that by the end of 2019, the petitioner said that Rs. 250 Lakhs is required for Demand Draft in respect to one project of NHIDCL (NH-54 Package-2), he being interested to take the said work deposited a sum of Rs. 10 Lakhs in the account of the petitioner's wife at Mizoram Rural Bank, Chanmari Branch. Further, it is alleged in the FIR that one Friend Construction Private Limited was formed to carry out the work together and while the complainant was preparing to initiate the work, they came to know that another company by the name of KRAM was already carrying out the work which was given to them. Though the said work could not be carried out by the complainant, the money deposited for the said work is not received back till date. It is further alleged that thereafter, by the end of 2020, the petitioner again informed the complainant that there is a work for widening of road at NH-54 Package-8 from Zero to Tuipang road and accordingly, the complainant undertook the said work and successfully completed the same