IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that for the offence of cheating to be established, the complainant must demonstrate fraudulent or dishonest intentions at the time of making promises or representations.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. A. M. Bora, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. V. A. Chowdhury, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. D. Saraf, learned counsel for the Respondent No.1.

2. This Criminal Petition has been registered on filing of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the petitioners, praying for quashing of the criminal proceedings in CR Case No.5875/2022, pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kamrup (M) as well as for setting aside the order dated 28.11.2022, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kamrup (M), in CR Case No.5875/2022, whereby summons were issued against the present petitioners.

3. The facts relevant for adjudication of this Criminal Petition, in brief, are as follows:

i. That the Petitioner No. 1, namely, Ashimara Housing Private Ltd. is a private limited company incorporated as per the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1913. It is operating “Your Space”, which is a premier student housing brand, having pan India presence. It caters to nearly 600 plus students. The Petitioner Nos. 2 to 4, are on the Board of Directors of the Petitioner No.1 Company and are not involved in the day-to-day operations of the Company. The Petitioner Nos.5 and 6 are the Executive Directors of the Petitioner No.1 Company.

ii. The Respondent No. 1, Smt. Neha Saraf, has filed a complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M), inter-alia, alleging that the petitioners have committed the offences under Sections 384/406/420 of the Indian Penal Code.

iii. It is stated in complaint filed by the Respondent No.1 that she is the Director of “Growth Maximisers Pvt. Ltd”, which is a private limited company and engaged in the business of providing hiring services to all industries by sourcing candidate to their clientele.

iv. It is alleged, in the complaint filed by the Respondent No. 1, that the Petitioner No. 1 Company had requested the respondent’s company to start providing their services for hiring suitable candidates and accordingly, the respondent’s company informed the petitioner’s company about the terms and conditions of the service, which was confirmed by the petitioner’s company through e-mail. However, no written agreement is there between the parties.

v. It is also stated in the complaint that the respondent’s company started providing head hunting services to the petitioner’s company on agreed terms and conditions. However, it is alleged in the complaint that the petitioner’s company always used to violate the terms of payment by withholding the payments to the respondent’s company and used to pay the same only after repeated persuasion via e-mail.

vi. It is also alleged in the complaint that the respondent’s company sourced two candidates, namely, Shridhar Prabhu Anantharaman and Neetika as per the given requirement. However, it is alleged that one Mr. Vinayak representing the petitioner’s company instructed the respondent’s company not to co-ordinate with Shridhar Prabhu Anantharaman as he wanted to deal with the candidate himself.

vii. Thereafter, the respondent’s company raised invoice dated 17.05.2022 for Rs. 3,24,500/- in respect of charges for hiring of Shridhar Prabhu Anantharaman and invoice dated 18.05.2022 for Rs. 1,06,200/- in respect of charges for hiring Neetika . The total amount in respect of two candidates was of Rs. 4,30,700/-.

viii. It is alleged in the complaint that the petitioner’s company, after availing the services of the respondent’s company in respect of the aforesaid candidates started harassing the respondent company by asking them to reduce the invoice amount and demanded adjustment of the service charge for hiring one Mr. Anish Dhatavkar, which had already been paid by the petitioner’s company.

ix. The respondent’s company also issued a legal notice dated 27.07.2022 to the petitioner’s company in this respect