The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise in cases of cheating under Section 420 RPC.

1. Through the instant petition filed under Section 561-A Cr.P.C., the petitioner inter alia seeks quashing of the criminal proceedings pending before the court of learned Munsiff, JMIC, Bhaderwah in a complaint titled ‘Shahid Butt vs. Sourav Aggarwal’ under Section 420 RPC.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner’s concern namely M/s Uma Cement Industries, Udhampur, sold cement to the respondent worth Rs.2,65,000/-in the months of June & July, 2012. The respondent paid an amount of Rs.13,515/- in cash and undertook to pay the balance amount by 13th August, 2012. It is stated that the respondent, however, did not make the payment of the balance amount of Rs.2,51,685/- as promised by 13th of August 2012 where after, the petitioner requested the respondent repeatedly for making the payment of the abovementioned balance amount but the respondent kept on dilly dallying the matter on one pretext or the other. It is further stated that constrained by the non-payment of the balance amount by the petitioner to the respondent, the petitioner served the respondent with a legal notice dated 23.10.2012 demanding the payment of aforementioned balance amount. However, the respondent yet did not make the payment demanded vide the legal notice (supra). The petitioner left with no other option but to file a civil suit titled, “Sourav Kumar Aggarwal vs. Shahid Ejaz” against the respondent before the court of learned District Judge, Udhampur on 17.01.2013 for the recovery of a sum of Rs.2,51,685/- due and payable by the respondent on account of the price of the goods sold and delivered to him by the petitioner along with pendent elite, future interest and costs. It is further contended that the respondent, after the receipt of the aforementioned legal notice followed by the filing of the civil suit by the petitioner against him on 17.01.2013 and having acquired the knowledge of the pendency thereof against him, has filed a totally false, flimsy & frivolous the criminal complaint under section 420 RPC against the petitioner as a counter blast wherein the court of learned Munsiff, JMIC, after recording the statement of the respondent and witness, took cognizance of the complaint and issued process against the petitioner.

3. The petitioner feeling aggrieved of the same, has filed the present petition on the following grounds:

(i) That the learned trial court has proceeded in a mechanical manner in as much as the learned trial court has neither considered the complaint filed by the complainant nor his statement in a judicious manner while issuing the process against the petitioner in the said complaint filed by the respondent. The learned trial court's order dated 19.08.2013 directing the issuance of process against the petitioner does not speak of the allegations leveled against the petitioner in the complaint. No such allegations have been summarized in the said order dated 19.08.2013. The learned trial court also failed to record its satisfaction warranting the issuance of the process against the petitioner or even give any reasons for entering any such satisfaction. No reference to the material on the record was made by the learned trial court. The said order dated 19.08.2013 has been passed by the learned trial court without any application of mind and the same is also not in consonance with the law laid down by this Hon’ble Court in catena of judgments postulating and mandating the trial court to properly apply is mind to the allegations, record briefly the allegations, give reasons for entering the satisfaction for warranting the issuance of process. The said order does not even say that there was sufficient material for proceedings against the petitioner. The order dated 19.08.2013 is contrary to the law & thus, the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner vide said order deserve to be quashed.

(ii) That the learned trial court has taken the cognizance of the complaint filed by the respondent against the petitio