The main legal point established in the judgment is that the offence of cheating requires fraudulent or dishonest inducement and deception, and the statutory requirements of notice under the Negotiable Instrument Act must be complied with for maintaining prosecution.

By Court : Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State.

2. This application has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of C-1 Case No.809 of 2000 including the order dated 16.11.2000 whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act has been taken against the petitioner.

3. Before adverting to the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, the case of the complainant needs to be taken notice of.

4. The complainant-Opp. Party No.2 filed a complaint, stating therein that the complainant-M/s Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd. is engaged in manufacturing and sale of Iron and Steel products including STP Tubes.

5. Further case is that for the purpose of marketing of its product, the complainant-Company appointed M/s Suprabhat Pvt. Ltd., New Dak Bunglow Road, Patna as one of its Distributors to which this petitioner, at the relevant point of time, was one of the Directors, for dealing in the product of the complainant-Company. Accordingly, the complainant-Company through its Sale Officer used to provide STP Tubes to the petitioner on credit and also on making payment for its sale.

6. In course of time, outstanding payable to the complainant-Company by the accused company accumulated to the tune of Rs.1,28,17,126.13 as on 29.05.2000.

7. Further case is that in order to make part payment, cheque of Rs.1,27,27,126.13 dated 10.07.2000 drawn by the accused Sandeep Boobna on his behalf and also on behalf of others including the petitioner on Bank of India, Main Branch, Patna was given to the complainant company. On deposit, it got bounced due to insufficient fund, information of which was given by the Banker to the complainant vide memo date 17.07.2000.

8. Thereupon, notice of demand dated 22nd July, 2000 was sent under two registered posts on 24.07.2000, but the same was returned unserved. However, it has been alleged that the accused persons have had knowledge of preferring demand and in spite of that, the accused persons failed to give payment of the amount of Rs.1,27,27,126.13 to the complainant-company.

9. On such allegation, a complaint was lodged which was registered as C1 Case No.809 of 2000 under Sections 406, 420 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. On holding inquiry, the court, having found prima facie being made out, took cognizance of the offences punishable under the aforesaid Sections. That order is under challenge.

10. Mr. S.D. Sanjay, leaned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that taking the entire allegation made in the complaint to be true, no offence is made out either under Sections 406 or 420 of the Indian Penal Code, as the petitioner has never alleged to have induced the complainant dishonestly and fraudulently to part with the material for which no payment was allegedly made and, thereby, no offence is made out either under Sections 406 or 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

11. I do find substance in the submission made on behalf of the petitioner.

12. It be stated that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal [(1992) Supp (1) SCC 335] has been pleased to lay down certain categories of the cases by way of illustrations wherein inherent power under Section 482 of the Code can be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Code or otherwise to secure ends of justice. One of such categories is:-

“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.”

13. In the context of the principle laid down, one needs to consider as to whether allegation made in the complaint does constitute offence of cheating or no